Roof

BST Users
  • Content count

    2,009
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About Roof

  • Rank
    1,000 Post Club!
  1. Sure. There are two choices; witting asset of Russia or unwitting asset. Which ever case, he was a tremendous asset. Look at the dangerous confusion Trump causes. Particularly to our Western European Allies of Nato, who are dealing with up and coming authoritarians themselves. But what about his satellites? Flynn, Stone, Bannon, Manafort....they could influence Trump by being witting assets. Or Trump could have just wanted to get Hillary any way he could and didn't think he really did anything wrong using a bit of Russian help. After all, in his famous speech, he encouraged Putin to do exactly than. I think that "getting" Hillary and Obama was so strong, and hacking and disinformation so gentle, comparatively speaking, that they mayn't had thought they were doing anything really wrong, not to mention treasonous. Otherwise, Stone wouldn't have been crowing about soon to be released hacked emails from the Dems. That's the way Trumpers here think. I believe. Battering and getting rid of Hillary and Obama justified any (relatively gentle) ways to do so. They think it is OK but don't want to admit that. So they claim the Russian stuff bogus, and the most knowledgeable people we have, deluded or disingenuous.
  2. Read the Pizzagate thread. The home of the Far Fetchers. What did the Birther thing look like here? That was Trump's prelude to his popularity and eventual Presidency.
  3. Well, where are we now? The Senate Committee has turned down his offer. And all are well aware of the Ollie North problem of IranContra: they gave North immunity before the FBI was done with their investigation. It backfired hugely. I hope they wouldn't make the same mistake.
  4. Hmmm, quite a lot here, Tim. It scares me that you wouldn't be surprised if someone Trump never met spent years "cultivating" him to be a puppet in case Trump ever became president...never mind the fact that he was supposed to lose at every step along the way - never mind that Putin has never spoken to Trump Trump said he met Putin, or then he said he hadn't met Putin...Or that they were stablemates on 60 minutes...or not...which shall it be Tim? But regardless, I am using "Putin" exactly as you use "Obama" when you describe him wire tapping the Trump. Get it? Putin's intelligence, just like Obama's intelligence. See the possessive s on the people's names? You do realize that Putin would have to be the single biggest stooge on the planet to invest years into "cultivating" someone who, right up to election day, had about zero chance of ever being president, right? Even dumber than Russia's version of the CIA that hasn't figured out how to hide their IP address when they are "hacking"....right? Oh Tim. I didn't say and never thought or implied that Putin "installed" Trump as President. Nor did he cultivate him for the Presidency. He may have helped him with the Birther thing. He was as surprised as Trump himself with the win, I'd say. But haven't you been listening to the House and Senate Intel Committees? Russia didn't need Trump to win to sew confusion and discord. Just Trump running was enough to raise the confusion level, just like it did when Trump launched the great Birther scare. No doubt wildly accepted here with open arms. When your theories require other people to be so incredibly stupid that they would need their addresses pinned to their jackets to make sure they get home every night, it might be time to start looking for new theories Were you a birther? I consider that much more stupid than anything you accuse me of. So, we got that cleared up, and just for fair measure, I return the same distain for your stupid theories too. Particularly your avoidance to accept what our Nations experts say about Russia. This is as foolish as the day is long. http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/ I suggest you get your feet a bit more on the ground by reading the above link. You'll see a close relationship between Trump and all sorts of various Russians. For a very long time. You see, there are two sorts of assets of intelligence; witting and unwitting. So Trump is unwitting, the Ginger Puppet. In my view, shared by our experts, so are you guys unwitting helpers of disinformation. The article is scrupulously footnoted, the information developed from legal, governmental, and financial documents. Not fake news, unless one is stupid. ------------------------- So to summarize, I never thought or said--never-- that Trump was installed by Putin, nor meant to be installed by Putin's agents. Nor cultivated as a Presidential candidate for years. Russian disruption is a generalized effort with generalized effects. Trump got as far as he did and Russia saw a chance to make some hay. And so we have Trump to everyone's surprise, and among those most surprised are our Intelligence and Russian experts. They are also horrified, why aren't you? See, I think it pretty stupid that I have to explain this to you.
  5. This is a learnable moment for things Russian: one threat was from the far far Left, one threat is from the far far Right. The Commie Red Baiting started post WW2 under the propulsion of people like Allen Dulles, the first CIA chief, his tenure running about 10 or so years to 1961. Dulles and the Deep State (or Military Industrial Complex as Eisenhower called it) were interested in the Imperial domination of various resources of foreign nations. They were also very anti- Communist, given Russian possession of the bomb, and a philosophical fear of anything Socialist ---or even Left leaning. So the Commies were hunted door to door and under all beds. Trumps mentor Cohn was a major player in this hunt, along with Nixon and the McCarthy of McCarthyism. The Commies were never really going to take over the U.S but their influence could help swerve the generalized cause of Democrats. And the imperialists certainly didn't want that. But they didn't want a witch hunt of the Intelligencia or Acadamia either from whence they derived some of their best talent. The CIA helped stop McCarthyism. And it relied on those it saved in the News industry to become "Mockingbirds" to carry forth CIA messaging. In a hey day that ran almost 30 years, CIA had influence and control of any news they deemed important. They accomplished this with EVERY major Newspaper and many columnists. All TV networks and all wire service News sources. You can look it up, and I hope you do. Operation Mockingbird. The most famous Mockingbird of all time was CIA trained William F. Buckley Jr. And you could look that up too. ------------------------------- But now we have another, indeed the OPPOSITE Russian threat: that of a Plutocratic Dictatorial State... Where a few have all the money and luxuriate in their corruption, perhaps as the Politburo did with the USSR, but now a political philosophy espoused openly, and proudly. And more commonly in this Country too. Radical wealth disparity was the subject of Occupy Wall Street, and it was a powerful movement. This is why this present Putin threat is far more malign than the Commie threat in 1953. We are already threatened by an exceedingly wealthy Private Corporate Finance lodged deeply within our Government, and the Russian influence makes it worse. Trump is a symbol and obvious threat of this when he claims no need of exposing tax returns, no need of Conflict of Interest concerns... Just as the Russians don't. The Russia Love; two lover bros separated for the moment, but in their hearts, companions well met. Both wanting Swamps of their own where private influence and the ability to accumulate preposterous wealth is created by an Autocratic Regime without the slightest respect for the tenants of Democracy.
  6. This is why they do not, and cannot accept House or Senate Hearings of which unquestioned experts assure us that Putin is aggressively targeting Western Democracies. They call this the "Deep State" or "The Swamp" protecting itself. I said. Further, were Putin and Oligarchs found to be assisting Trump, his fans stated repulsion of the Deep State is left hanging: Russia doesn't HAVE a Deep State, which means a hidden shadow government. There is nothing hidden about Russia's corrupt and all powerful rulers. Were I running a Dem political campaign focused on this issue, I would hope that specific disinformation ---like Pizzagate --- were linked directly to Putin. Then, I would search all the Republican Congress and Government critters that forwarded this stuff. Then, I'd have a media campaign to point out they were the stubborn and unwitting instruments of our Adversary. ----------------------- Given JohnW's link and how far its disclosures go back: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/ I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, Trump was found to be a carefully cultivated puppet for Putin. An effort taking many years. And given John's link again, it appears that this is exactly where the investigation may go.
  7. Because Trump's campaign never said anything particularly substantive or specific about anything. Hillary and Dems were absolutely outflanked when they wanted to talk about specific policy, when all Trumpers wanted to hear were things like The Wall! The Imagrunts! Lock her up! Kenyan! So Trump relied on tweets of disinformation, whole reams of speculative and purposeful nonsense from sites like Breitbart and InfoWars....The reason these sites too, along with Trump and his menagerie of white collar criminals, are also part of an FBI investigation of Russian influence. --------------------------- Honestly; one of the most substantive questions about Flynn was whether he actually believed PizzaGate sorta stuff, or whether he was knowingly promulgating destructive lies, perhaps with outside assistance. But the anti-Trumps can't really talk to the pro-Trumps because Russian assistance to "get" Hillary, and Obama, and the Libs, is justified in their minds. Because they were so bad, so hated. This is why they do not, and cannot accept House or Senate Hearings of which unquestioned experts assure us that Putin is aggressively targeting Western Democracies. They call this the "Deep State" or "The Swamp" protecting itself. This attitude of itself is a great boon for our adversaries. The Intelligence Committees made this very clear as well.
  8. This deserves to be bumped.
  9. Apropos of Brian's accurate Ollie North observation: The most famous case here is Lt. Col. Oliver North, a National Security Council staffer in the Reagan administration. North was a pivotal figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan’s secret sale of weapons to Iran in order to fund the anti-communist Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua. North had lied under oath about the arms sales and altered official records to hide them, crimes that probably would have earned him a prison sentence absent congressional intervention or a presidential pardon. Yet a joint House-Senate investigative committee, deeming North’s information vital to the public interest, granted him use immunity before the FBI could fully build its case. North’s hearing was televised, and was watched so widely that it became impossible for prosecutors to prove that their case hadn’t been influenced by North’s admissions to Congress about his own activities. His initial conviction was overturned on appeal by a DC federal court, and he went on to have a successful post-government career as a Fox News personality.
  10. Makes sense, Patch. Here's the Vox article. ---------------------------------- To understand where Wright is coming from, you need to understand a little bit about the way congressional immunity works in the US legal system. You also need to understand Flynn’s particular role in the Trump-Russia saga — because Flynn’s long history of ties to Russia put him in a uniquely significant position. Ultimately, though, the odds suggest that Flynn won't get an immunity deal. The Senate Intelligence Committee has already turned down his request, according to NBC News; getting it from the House committee would require a two-thirds vote, and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Adam Schiff, said in a statement that he’s not prepared to offer Flynn immunity yet. “There is still much work and many more witnesses and documents to obtain before any immunity request from any witness can be considered,” Schiff said. More fundamentally, it’s hard to see Democrats granting one to a widely disliked former Trump official when there’s still a chance the FBI might prosecute him for allegedly lying to the bureau about his contacts with the Russian envoy to the US. The Trump administration’s call for Flynn to appear before Congress, in Sean Spicer’s Friday press briefing, could very well harden their resolve against immunity. This is all very bad news for Flynn, who ironically said that asking for immunity was proof that you had done something wrong when discussing Hillary Clinton’s email scandal during the campaign. “When you are given immunity, that means that you have probably committed a crime,” he told NBC’s Chuck Todd in an interview. “There’s every possibility that this will turn into nothing — that nobody will take the bait and he will not get any kind of immunity from anybody,” Wright concludes. Flynn’s lawyer is making a political appeal, not a legal one. There are two kinds of immunity in the US legal system: “transactional” immunity and “use” immunity. Transactional is the typical type of immunity that you’re probably familiar with from watching cop dramas: We promise not to prosecute you as long as you agree to testify in court against a bigger target. ' For Flynn to get transactional immunity, he’d need to go to the FBI, which is currently investigating him on counterintelligence charges tied to his communications with the Russian ambassador to the US; Flynn’s lies about those interactions led Trump to fire him in mid-February. That kind of immunity doesn’t seem very likely. The Wall Street Journal, which first reported Flynn’s appeal, reports that Kelner had already gone to the FBI but has “so far found no takers.” Moreover, publicly releasing a letter spelling out your desire for an immunity deal isn't what attorneys do when they feel they have a strong case that could pave the way for a deal with prosecutors. “What [prosecutors] want to do is get a story while doing as little damage as possible to other criminal cases,” Wright explains. “The way you do as little damage as possible is you keep it quiet. You don’t negotiate through the press.” Use immunity is a different story. Any congressional committee conducting an official investigation can offer it, provided there’s a supermajority vote in favor of granting immunity and that a judge signs off afterward. Once granted, it means that nothing the person says when testifying before the committee can be used against them at trial. In theory, this is supposed to be more limited than transactional immunity: Federal prosecutors can still go after someone who has use immunity, provided they don’t rely on anything the person said during congressional testimony. In practice, however, granting someone use immunity usually ends up making it impossible for prosecutors to successfully get a conviction. “It is just really hard, later on, to prove to a judge that the prosecutor remained independent and untainted from the information that was bought [by Congress] through the immunity,” Wright explains. "Michael Flynn could be in a lot of trouble. And it seems like his attorney knows it. The most famous case here is Lt. Col. Oliver North, a National Security Council staffer in the Reagan administration. North was a pivotal figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan’s secret sale of weapons to Iran in order to fund the anti-communist Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua. North had lied under oath about the arms sales and altered official records to hide them, crimes that probably would have earned him a prison sentence absent congressional intervention or a presidential pardon. Yet a joint House-Senate investigative committee, deeming North’s information vital to the public interest, granted him use immunity before the FBI could fully build its case. North’s hearing was televised, and was watched so widely that it became impossible for prosecutors to prove that their case hadn’t been influenced by North’s admissions to Congress about his own activities. His initial conviction was overturned on appeal by a DC federal court, and he went on to have a successful post-government career as a Fox News personality. Flynn’s lawyer is most likely trying to accomplish something similar: convince members of Congress that the disgraced former national security adviser, like North, has vital information about the investigation into the Trump-Russia scandal. Dangling the possibility of Flynn’s testimony in front of them, and then building public interest in hearing from him, seems like Kelner’s strategy for persuading Congress to make a deal. Flynn’s connections to Russia make the offer somewhat tempting, but they’re probably not enough Here’s the attractive core of Kelner’s offer, from Congress’s point of view: Michael Flynn has a very long, very shady history of ties to Russia. Flynn was fired from his position as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014. Furious with the Obama administration over his ouster and its unwillingness to listen to his hardline views about Islamist terrorism, Flynn started to cozy up with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. He became a semi-regular guest on RT, Russia’s English-language propaganda outlet, regularly arguing for the US and Russia to partner in Syria against ISIS. Flynn did not disclose whether RT was paying him for these appearances. But we’ve since learned that he was paid $45,000 for attending RT’s 10th anniversary gala in December 2015. He sat next to Putin himself, and delivered a speech to the attendees about his view of the world. A recent Washington Post investigation found two more payments from Russian-affiliated companies totaling $22,500, also ostensibly for speeches. These pro-Russia and hardline anti-Islam views (he once tweeted “fear of Muslims is RATIONAL”) made Flynn a natural for the Trump campaign. He became one of Trump’s key foreign policy advisers and perhaps his most prominent surrogate on national security affairs. During his speech at the Republican National Convention, he led the crowd in a rousing anti-Clinton jeer: “Lock her up! Lock her up!” After Trump won the election in November, it seems Flynn was a key point of contact between the Trump transition team and Russia. On December 29, the Obama administration announced a series of new sanctions on Russia as punishment for its interference in the US presidential election. That same day, Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak multiple times — and they talked about the sanctions. This, ultimately, is what got Flynn fired and into hot water with the FBI. But it wasn’t the calls themselves; it was the fact that Flynn lied to Vice President Mike Pence about it, and the fact that this lie became public knowledge. We still don’t know whether Flynn called Kislyak on his own initiative or with the president’s approval. The key question for both Congress and the FBI is whether the Trump campaign knew about Russia’s hacking of the Clinton campaign and colluded in it — and, if so, whether Trump himself was involved or aware of the collusion. Flynn’s long history of involvement with the Russians suggests he might have at least some insight to share on this topic — which is what makes his offer enticing. However, we don’t know that any collusion took place; FBI chief Jim Comey recently told a House panel that law enforcement hasn’t yet found evidence of that. Even if there were improper contacts between Team Trump and Russia, it’s not clear Flynn knew or was involved. Just as likely, if not more so, is that other Trump campaign associates with close ties to Russia, like former campaign manager Paul Manafort, ran point on any putative coordination with Russian intelligence — if any took place. Manafort has agreed to testify before Congress already, seemingly without any kind of immunity request. So while Flynn’s past makes him a target of suspicion in this investigation, it’s hardly enough to guarantee he has enough to persuade lawmakers or prosecutors to agree to spare him from court. And the fact that Flynn’s lawyer released such a high-profile statement, as we’ve discussed, militates against it. So while it might be tempting for Congress to take Flynn up on his offer, they’re savvy enough to pick up on the signal that there isn’t anything here. That appears to be why the Senate investigation, by far the more serious of the two, has already turned down Flynn’s attempt at a deal. Ultimately, according to Wright, the most likely scenario is that Flynn is attempting to immunize himself against prosecution without having solid information to add about Trump and Russia. If that’s right, then the chances of any kind of immunity are exceedingly low. Michael Flynn could be in a lot of trouble. And it seems like his attorney knows it.
  11. I found this link useful: *
  12. CNN hasn't offered me a contract renewal yet. But I am hoping my work here will help that. Welter Skelter, see below. Welter: 1. a large number of items in no order; a confused mass. "there's such a welter of conflicting rules" synonyms: confusion, jumble, tangle, mess, hodgepodge, mishmash, mass; informalrat's nest "the notebook was a welter of half-finished stories" ​--------------------------------------- Here's a good piece about Flynn and the doubtful value of his immunity. If you have the endurance to read Pizzagate, you should give this and Jim's link a close look. http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/31/15138512/michael-flynn-immunity-congress-testify (you'll have to cut and paste this link)
  13. I am with you Lone. That crippled herring goes real good!
  14. Here's Jim's link for all the tunnelers, or non-tunnelers, among us. Did Flynn believe in tunnels, or not? Were he and his yo-yo son actual believers in Pizzagate? Unless this can be accurately assessed, his testimony is pretty useless. The guy is a Class A whackabilly absolutely definable by his belief in PizzaGate. Like some here, an unwitting helper of Russians. OR If he ISN'T, then now you got a direction to proceed. Then he's a possible witting agent of Vlad.
  15. Have you read all of that welter, that avalanche of absolute excrement that has been posted at the Pizzagate thread by the jumping Trump supporter? I haven't. And I bet you haven't either. Bound to be some tunnels there. But so what if there isn't? You claim the denial of "tunnels" is some sort of litmus of your discerning judgement? Your belief in PizzaGate, tunnels or no, is plenty enough. Read Jim's link yet? How about some of your "discerning" judgement of that?