Richard Stanley

Administrator
What's up with Orange Individual 1 and the Revolutionary Guards? In relation to the new American sanctions against them, he created business carve-outs for people doing business with them. So then, what's the purpose of the sanctions to begin with? Oddly, Trump has just announced that he will not renew prior sanctions waivers in May that allow other countries to buy Iranian oil. This last will help prop up global oil prices, which American oilmen will be happy about.

Maybe it all has to do with the article I discussed recently:

An international Trump real estate project article, Donald Trump's Worst Deal, from March, 2017 managed to escape me. This one involves Trump's business relationship to Iran's Revolutionary Guards, of whom Agent Orangutan has just announced are a terrorist organization.

The project seemed guaranteed to lose money, and the question becomes what the Trump Org's motivation to be involved in it was. Especially since the Trump's are so connected to other similar money laundering endeavors. Curiously the Trump's rejected the participation of a construction company (deemed incompetent by the Trumps) owned by the project's major partner, while accepting a family member of the same partner to manage things, and where this individual had no relevant experience.
The following is an excerpt from an article discussing the carve-outs:

The exemptions, granted by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and described by a State Department spokesman in response to questions from Reuters, mean officials from countries such as Iraq who may have dealings with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, would not necessarily be denied U.S. visas. The IRGC is a powerful faction in Iran that controls a business empire as well as elite armed and intelligence forces.
The exceptions to U.S. sanctions would also permit foreign executives who do business in Iran, where the IRGC is a major economic force, as well as humanitarian groups working in regions such as northern Syria, Iraq and Yemen, to do so without fear they will automatically trigger U.S. laws on dealing with a foreign terrorist group.
However, the U.S. government also created an exception to the carve-out, retaining the right to sanction any individual in a foreign government, company or NGO who themselves provides “material support” to a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO).
The move is the latest in which the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has staked out a hardline position on Iran, insisting for example that Iran’s oil customers cut their imports of Iranian petroleum to zero, only to grant waivers allowing them keep buying it.
‘WHY BE SO OPAQUE?’
Pompeo designated the IRGC as an FTO on April 15, creating a problem for foreigners who deal with it and its companies, and for U.S. diplomats and military officers in Iraq and Syria, whose interlocutors may work with the IRGC. ...
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is a 41 minute Democracy Now debate between Glenn Greenwald and David Cay Johnson over the proper interpretation of the Mueller Report viz-a-viz such as Trump's relationship to Russia. The two cannot come to an agreement, which seems based upon various wordings in the report. This all appears to now be an effective divide and conquer shibboleth within the Left tent. People are coming to their respective interpretations based upon either their focus on Trump's Samson-esque depravities and such, or conversely on how such as the Russians appear to be either victims or antagonists.

I say: "Yes".

Meanwhile Trump's base numbers are holding pretty strong, perhaps losing only a handfull on the margins. The Left appears paralyzed over impeachment, and the timing of advancing matters like 'socialist' agendas and various 'reparations' might not be coming at a worse time, except for Trump, that is.

 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
edits made on 4/25/19

The following is an amicable and agreeable discussion, not a debate (despite being advertised as such) between Greenwald and Sam Seder.

Before long, Greenwald mentions that we should accept his position, same as the one he debated about with David Cay Johnson (see the prior post), because of the stellar reputation of Robert Mueller. WTF? I guess 'everybody' (except 9/11 Truthers that is), including Greenwald, considers that Mueller did a stellar FBI job on the 9/11 (non)investigation. And, this in the light that Greenwald had already mentioned the spotty reputations of various US intel organizations.

And again neglecting that Mueller appears to have punted the ball regarding Trump and his crime family (like the Bush and Clinton crime families) to Congress, for good Constitutional reasons and bad, the DOJ memo. Mueller stated he relied on the DOJ memo. Why mention this if the issue was moot?

Greenwald mentions that there was no reason to 'employ' Roger Stone to inquire about what Wikileaks had if the Trump campaign was actually in cahoots with the Russians. Maybe Stone was 'employed' to create this very impression, to sow doubt? And the more mud in the water, the better distraction there might be for obscuring the role of the Real Deep State. It should be noted here, as well, that the Steele Dossier got its start with the Jeb Bush campaign before being turned over to the Clinton campaign (the Bush and Clinton collaborations go way back to Arkansas). David Cay Johnson brought up the fact about the earlier provenance of the Steele Dossier without mentioning the Bush name, and Greenwald was rather sheepish about not including that, albeit it is a plausible innocent omission.

Greenwald then goes on to discuss the differential treatment of the various 'leakers' (maybe including Assanage) versus the light treatments of General Flynn and General Petraeus. As I have discussed before about Flynn, both of these generals were "in country" in Afghanistan, understand the geopolitics, and such as protecting the opium trade. It is circumstances like these that make me believe that the Hillary email business, from beginning to end is indeed a scam high level psy-op.

Greenwald believes that the Seth Rich narrative, pushed by Faux News, is a scam, BTW.

If the Russians are innocents, then they allowed themselves to be played by Trump, in many regards. They should not have allowed Trump to repeatedly conform to the narrative of a quid pro quo with them.

 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Before long, Greenwald mentions that we should accept his position, same as the one he debated about with David Cay Johnson (see the prior post), because of the stellar reputation of Robert Mueller. WTF? I guess 'everybody', including Greenwald, considers that Mueller did a stellar FBI job on the 9/11 (non)investigation.
Greenwald's position supporting the Mueller investigations of both Russiagate and 9/11, makes sense considering that he works for Peter Omidyar at The Intercept. Omidyar has well-known connections to the NSA and CIA. And unlike Assange, The Intercept is in the business of suppressing leaks, rather than publishing them. After sitting on the vast majority Snowden's archive of NSA documents for five years, trickling out just a few documents from time to time, The Intercept has just announced that they don't have enough funding to publish so much as one more document. This in spite of having had enough funds to pay Glenn Greenwald the sum of $1.6 million from 2014 to 2017. See:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/intercept-snowden-archive/256772/

https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/03/huge-former-intercept-writer-steps-forward-is-the-intercept-an-intelligence-operation/

And you think Wikileaks is corrupt??

Greenwald then goes on to discuss the differential treatment of the various 'leakers' (maybe including Assanage) versus the light treatments of General Flynn and General Petraeus. Both of these generals were "in country" in Afghanistan, understand the geopolitics, and such as protecting the opium trade. It is circumstances like these that make me believe that the Hillary email business, from beginning to end is indeed a scam.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. Because Assange and other 'leakers' got punished far more heavily than Flynn and Petraeus, that proves that the leakers are a scam? What aspect(s) of the "Hillary email business" do you believe are a scam?

Greenwald believes that the Seth Rich narrative, pushed by Faux News, is a scam, BTW.
Well, of course he would. He's pushing the narrative that the Mueller investigation is completely accurate & reliable.

If the Russians are innocents, then they allowed themselves to be played by Trump, in many regards. They should not have allowed Trump to repeatedly conform to the narrative of a quid pro quo with them.
Nobody questions that the Russians have always seen Trump as a good business partner. They wanted him to win and they were happy that he did. You have a problem with that?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
edits made on 4/25/19

And you think Wikileaks is corrupt??
So, now you're saying Russiagate is real? You've got my head spinning Jerry. Greenwald has been saying that Russiagate is bogus. Before you attacked me for questioning Greenwald, and now your attacking me for ...?

I say Wikileaks may be corrupt.

I have also made clarification edits to the post you're commenting on, and here as well.
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/just-saying-whos-trumping-der-fuhrer.1548/post-11646
I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. Because Assange and other 'leakers' got punished far more heavily than Flynn and Petraeus, that proves that the leakers are a scam?
The "other leakers" (mentioned in the video) having nothing to do with the Hillary emails, that is. So no, I'm not saying they are part of a scam psy-op (related to Russiagate).

I'm saying, as before, that everything about the Hillary emails, and the DNC emails, is a Global Deep State scam psy-op.

Well, of course he would. He's pushing the narrative that the Mueller investigation is completely accurate & reliable.
And thus, that Russiagate is bogus because Mueller did not indict for conspiracy with the Russians.

Nobody questions that the Russians have always seen Trump as a good business partner.
Really? In what sense? He has no legitimate business in Russia, as he says.

They wanted him to win and they were happy that he did. You have a problem with that?
He does do money laundering for Russians (and others). So yes, I absolutely have a problem with that in general, and specifically that because he is our president.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So, now you're saying Russiagate is real? You've got my head spinning Jerry. Greenwald has been saying that Russiagate is bogus. Before you attacked me for questioning Greenwald, and now your attacking me for ...?
It's true that Greenwald has been saying (since the beginning) that Russiagate is bogus. Marcy Wheeler called him a "denialist" surrounded by "lackeys" because of that position, and I objected to that. Because Greenwald and The Intercept are marketing themselves as advocates of the progressive left, they need to get a lot of things right. Greenwald's position on Russiagate has been largely correct, and Wheeler has been basically wrong.

But there are also serious problems at The Intercept. When it comes to the idea that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, Greenwald is following the Mueller report very closely. He says that the DNC leak came via the Russians, and that the Rich story is bogus. And, he buys into the theory that Putin was directly behind the Internet Research Agency trolling operation. About these issues, Greenwald's so-called "lackeys" are not with him at all.

Really? In what sense? He has no legitimate business in Russia, as he says.
Trump's Super Premium Vodka (2007), and Moscow Miss Universe Pageant (2013) were not legitimate businesses?

The Russians were courting Trump to build housing and hotels, but none of those deals materialized. Trump said it's because he couldn't find a good enough opportunity. Maybe the Russians were smart enough to be tough negotiators.

He does do money laundering for Russians (and others). So yes, I absolutely have a problem with that in general, and specifically that because he is our president.
I didn't mean to ask if you have a problem with Trump, or with the fact that he's President. My question is, what did the Russians (and specifically Putin) do wrong. You said: "They should not have allowed Trump to repeatedly conform to the narrative of a quid pro quo with them." Which leaves me puzzled as to what Putin (or Russian businesses in general) were supposed to do about this -- especially considering their legitimate desire to see Trump rather than Hillary win the election.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Greenwald believes that the Seth Rich narrative, pushed by Faux News, is a scam, BTW.
I watched the entire video now, to see what Greenwald would say about this. I believe there's a single sentence, at about 13:20, where Greenwald says "Fox scammed, I mean Fox promoted, a disgusting conspiracy theory about Seth Rich". Not what I'd call an in-depth analysis of the theory, nor an honest & complete presentation of the various parties advocating for it.

So I suppose I could excuse this on the same grounds as I justified Assange's dismissal of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Maybe Greenwald saw it on Fox News, and that's all he needed to know.

But if you want to argue that neither Assange nor Greenwald is operating at the highest possible level of integrity and conscientiousness in research, and the highest possible level of independence, I'd have to agree with you. Both of them are kowtowing to establishment narratives, at least to the extent that they need to do so to avoid being marginalized. Maybe this happens at an unconscious level.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Trump's Super Premium Vodka (2007), and Moscow Miss Universe Pageant (2013) were not legitimate businesses?

The Russians were courting Trump to build housing and hotels, but none of those deals materialized. Trump said it's because he couldn't find a good enough opportunity. Maybe the Russians were smart enough to be tough negotiators.
Miss Universe Moscow was a one off event as far as I know. OK, you got me on the vodka, except that it is a Dutch product. He had some third party deal to export it to Russia, but the vodka overall was yet another Trump failure. Who can't sell vodka to Russians? Trump.

Trump stated loudly during the campaign that he has no business IN Russia, which is semantically different than getting cash flow from Russians.

Typically, upon election presidents place their investments and such in a blind trust, or sell them off, to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of such. Trump has done no such thing, as well as refused to reveal his tax returns, while claiming that he would do all those things.

So yes, Jerry. Trump has lent the appearance, at least, of having conflicts of interest with Russia, whether or not the Russians are innocent lambs or not. I can't believe that you are even asking this, ... again.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So yes, Jerry. Trump has lent the appearance, at least, of having conflicts of interest with Russia, whether or not the Russians are innocent lambs or not. I can't believe that you are even asking this, ... again.
I am not asking whether Trump has conflicts of interest with Russia. Yes he does. He absolutely should put all his Russian-related cash flow assets in blind trust, to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest.

But that isn't my point. To repeat myself:

My question is, what did the Russians (and specifically Putin) do wrong. You said: "They should not have allowed Trump to repeatedly conform to the narrative of a quid pro quo with them." Which leaves me puzzled as to what Putin (or Russian businesses in general) were supposed to do about this -- especially considering their legitimate desire to see Trump rather than Hillary win the election.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
My question is, what did the Russians (and specifically Putin) do wrong. You said: "They should not have allowed Trump to repeatedly conform to the narrative of a quid pro quo with them." Which leaves me puzzled as to what Putin (or Russian businesses in general) were supposed to do about this -- especially considering their legitimate desire to see Trump rather than Hillary win the election.
If I were a Russian, I would have to ask myself if something odd was going on when Trump:

  • Invites us Russians into the Oval Office, tells us that he fired the FBI Director to take the Russiagate pressure off of him, and let's our Russian media have exclusive press coverage of that.
  • Agrees to meet several times with Putin without any American government Russia experts present, other than a translator
  • Confiscates the translator's notes
  • Alters the Republican Party platform vis-a-vis Russia
  • Doesn't establish an American internal dialogue about why official policy towards Russia should change, but instead makes blunt policy reversals of his own accord
  • Has his son-in-law ask for a secret back channel of communications using Russian means. He could have just waited a few months and the issue would have been moot.
  • Taken such a ham-handed approach to the Russian sanctions issue, using General Flynn, the Trump Tower meeting (about Russian orphans). And again, he could have waited a few months.
  • I'm sure there's more
My understanding is that such spookery is supposed to be much more subtle, and even Trump should understand this, despite the narrative of him being an imbecile. People can claim that all this is just innocent, but one has to deal, minimally, then, with the appearances, and his opaque nature on his organized crime aspects - context.

Yes, the Trump narrative has had him wanting to pursue real-estate ventures in the USSR since the 80's, while he also initiated his presidential aspirations, with such as Nixon and Kissinger, and Roger Ailes, and Roger Stone, ... But, the 'great' businessman never could get such a deal going until Trump Tower Moscow, ... while he was in the middle of the presidential campaign, no less.

It is all too "out in the open". It seems more designed to get the American 'Resistance' in a tizzy, while the Trumpistas react in reverse. Thus is fits with his Samsonian agent of chaos motif.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Invites us Russians into the Oval Office, tells us that he fired the FBI Director to take the Russiagate pressure off of him, and let's our Russian media have exclusive press coverage of that.
So Trump wanted to tell Lavrov that he thought Comey was "crazy, a real nut job". And somebody within Trump's inner circle, saw fit to tattle to the New York Times about it. Maybe that's why Trump wanted to tear up the translator's notes next time.

Lavrov didn't know in advance, that Trump would make such an unguarded comment. Should he have turned down the opportunity to meet with Trump, for fear that Trump would say something crazy?

Let's suppose you're correct that Trump was intentionally trying to act like a Russian spy, with the specific goal to anger and inflame his Democratic opponents, fitting in with the Samsonian agent of chaos motif.

If you were a Russian, and you noticed this really odd thing going on, what would you do about it? Could it be part of the genius of the scheme, that there is nothing the Russians can do?

If you were Putin, would you: insist on having American press always present, to report every private word that Trump ever says? Refuse to give the translator's notes back to Trump? Refuse to establish any back channel of communications, even when Trump's son-in-law comes requesting it? Call Trump on the hot line and tell him to reinstate the sanctions quick, before the Democrats get upset?

If you (as a Russian) took any of those actions, wouldn't it appear that you were acting treasonously in the situation?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So Trump wanted to tell Lavrov that he thought Comey was "crazy, a real nut job". And somebody within Trump's inner circle, saw fit to tattle to the New York Times about it. Maybe that's why Trump wanted to tear up the translator's notes next time.
Even if the Russians did what they are accused of, Comey is likely even more complicit in getting Trump elected, in announcing the re-opening of the Hillary investigation and not revealing, at the same time, the counterintelligence investigation against Trump.

So, Trump has a 'legitimate' reason to hide his conversations because of this?
Lavrov didn't know in advance, that Trump would make such an unguarded comment. Should he have turned down the opportunity to meet with Trump, for fear that Trump would say something crazy?
This is ridiculous. I stated that after Trump did such they should have been on alert.

If you were a Russian, and you noticed this really odd thing going on, what would you do about it? Could it be part of the genius of the scheme, that there is nothing the Russians can do?
That's why you supposedly have such as RT. I'm sure that RT would have let Putin or Lavrov on to let them say that they "think something is rotten in Denmark". But maybe it's those Russian Jews that are running the show at RT, and they refused to let Putin or Lavrov do so. :eek:

If you were Putin, would you: insist on having American press always present, to report every private word that Trump ever says?
The press is never present for such a thing. The issue is whether or not there are supposed non-politicos present on each side that follow through bureaucratically on what was discussed and report back to the respective (and supposedly responsible) groups that oversee policy matters for the respective peoples. I know, this is not how it really works in any case. I'm talking impressions and appearances.
Refuse to give the translator's notes back to Trump?
Putin doesn't have the American translator's notes, or are you saying he does have them? This could be a big scoop for us.
Refuse to establish any back channel of communications, even when Trump's son-in-law comes requesting it?
They should have told the dipshit not to be so obvious as to walk into the front door of their facility. So, they are either apparent dipshits like Kushner and Trump, or they are in on the shit show as well. I'm saying, again, it's more likely the latter. The Eastern West is still the West.
Call Trump on the hot line and tell him to reinstate the sanctions quick, before the Democrats get upset?
This is a moot point, because it was all exposed before Trump could execute on the supposed plan. But it got the hives abuzzin, didn't it?
If you (as a Russian) took any of those actions, wouldn't it appear that you were acting treasonously in the situation?
Yes, that's why Putin should have done what I said. But he didn't do that did he?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
On the day after that an extreme domestic White terrorist, Christopher Hasson, is announced to likely get released on bail, because Trump's DOJ did not file appropriate charges that they could have, Trump doubles down on his Charlottesville comments, this time saying he was really talking about those attended that were fans of General Robert E. Lee. But as the article below asserts, Robert E. Lee was just a convenient pretext for a different agenda. And Trump's rhetoric in the first instance, at least, served that same agenda, which is masked under his studied stumblebummery.

President Donald Trump on Friday defended comments he made after the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, when he infamously said there were “very fine people on both sides” of the violent white supremacist gathering.
Trump told reporters outside the White House that he didn’t mean to describe white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists as “very fine people,” as he did during a news conference back then. Rather, he claims he was talking about the people protesting the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville ― a glaringly false statement, given that everyone who participated in the “Unite The Right” torch march on Aug. 11 and rally on Aug. 12 was a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist, and they came to commit violence.
“I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee,” Trump said, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “People there were protesting the taking down of the monument to Robert E. Lee. Everybody knows that.”
Here’s a photo I took in C’ville on Aug. 12 of one of the first “statue supporters” in the park that morning. He was wearing an Adolf Hitler T-shirt. In the minutes and hours that followed, more Nazis showed up. pic.twitter.com/Q97uT9m7yG
— Andy Campbell (@AndyBCampbell) April 26, 2019
In reality, “Unite the Right” wasn’t billed as a rally for the Lee statue, which still stands today despite local campaigns to get it taken down over the years. The Lee statue and the controversy surrounding it merely served as a backdrop for two days’ worth of clashes, which ended with one protester dead and dozens of others wounded. ...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-defends-both-sides-charlottesville-comments-with-a-new-falsehood_n_5cc30c9de4b08846403d585d
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Greenwald's position supporting the Mueller investigations of both Russiagate and 9/11, makes sense considering that he works for Peter Omidyar at The Intercept. Omidyar has well-known connections to the NSA and CIA. And unlike Assange, The Intercept is in the business of suppressing leaks, rather than publishing them. After sitting on the vast majority Snowden's archive of NSA documents for five years, trickling out just a few documents from time to time, The Intercept has just announced that they don't have enough funding to publish so much as one more document. This in spite of having had enough funds to pay Glenn Greenwald the sum of $1.6 million from 2014 to 2017. See:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/intercept-snowden-archive/256772/

https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/03/huge-former-intercept-writer-steps-forward-is-the-intercept-an-intelligence-operation/
The following link is a long article about The Intercept, which there is too much to excerpt. It opens by wondering whether or not TI is trying to divide the Left electorate, the consequence of which would help ensure Trump's likely re-election, likely given the state of the huge Dem roster of candidates and such. It discusses that after already putting in $87 million, Omidyar had promised to put up to $250 million into the operation, dwarfing the amount taken in by Greenwald.

The article discusses that Greenwald's position on Russiagate is not supported by other staff at TI.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/24/the-intercept-greenwald-grim-profile-media-politics-left-liberal-226710?utm_source=pocket-newtab
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I have to admit that I have been late to the Omidyar et al. party regarding such as the Snowden business. It seems that the Putineskas, by appearances at least, are too, considering that Omidyar's and Snowden's common connections to Booz Allen et al. have been known for some time. That is, if I am to take your word that they, the Putineskas, are such little innocent lambs. Rest assured, I still don't.

Has Snowden been called into the Kremlin or the GRU headquarters to inquire about these connections? Likely, they didn't need to IMO.

If I had been aware of the above links, I would be howling long before that the operators of the Russiagate psy-op would insist upon a cleaner appearing vehicle, such as Wikileaks, to launder this data, as opposed to the Snowden data.

The following is an interview by Sibel Edmonds with Mint Press's Whitney Webb:

 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is a partial transcript of the prior interview. It discusses Palantir, which I briefly mention here on another thread. Just before 31 minutes in the prior video, Whitney Webb states:

... and as I talked about a little bit in my in my second article, there was a plan devised in 2010 around the time of the Manning leaks that was aimed at taking down the WikiLeaks threat. And there they, Palantir, which is this other PayPal link company that works with the government, broke down various weaknesses that they believe that WikiLeaks had.
One of those was what they termed a mission weakness, and there they said in the document that there they perceived a fracture among the followers of WikiLeaks and Julian - that had believed that Julian was going astray, and this isn't 2010 mind you. I'm going astray astray from the original nonpartisan cause of WikiLeaks and that he had selected his own personal mission because he just hates the U.S. so much that he's going to attack the United States with all his might, even though WikiLeaks has released on on tons of governments including Russia you know.
With that that here didn't matter, so what the document said is to use this information, use a media campaign and people that are in and play the feuding groups off of each other. And now several years later, that's what seems to be happening, except instead of the U.S. being the target of Julian's supposed mission, attack mission, and whatnot, it's Hillary Clinton or it became Hillary Clinton. And that, of course, has gotten all mixed up in this. Anyone that wanted to take on Hillary Clinton or didn't like Hillary Clinton in any way is a Russian stooge, even if they're committing Russian Russian stooge and they don't know it, they're secretly working for Russia because this is what Russia wants etc..
So I think what what has gone on here at the Freedom of the Press Foundation is a mix of things. It's a mix of these groups being played off of each other. You know, all this hatred of Trump because a lot of these people, as you noted in our interview for this story, the people the Freedom of the Press Foundation are generally are pretty much all leftist, so their hatred for Trump is sort of being manipulated this way, but also at the same time you have Omidyar's hand in there. He is for a long time then a thorn, and WikiLeaks I as shown by his actions during the financial blockade, which took about 95% of all of WikiLeaks income during the time it was in effect. And this is while he was owner of PayPal, all of this was going on, and he said this is a really telling thing about the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
As well, when in 2013 Omidyar said that the PayPal blockade on I was no longer in effect, he said this on Twitter. And WikiLeaks responded and said: no it's still in effect, here is our proof, you know. And they they gave their proof and Omidyar said this was not the case, and so on and so forth, and at the time the Freedom of the Press Foundation said Omidyar, you are wrong, the blockade is still in effect. And now, even though nothing has changed between, you know, the services PayPal offers for people wanting to donate to WikiLeaks, it's pretty much, you know, it stayed the same since 2013. Now the Freedom of the Press Foundation says after looking at the evidence, the evidence we have decided that the blockade is no longer in effect, they ever now adopted Omidyar's stance.
Omidyar also has made it known that he doesn't like leakers at all. He thinks the organizations that publish their info should help catch the thief, wow.

And so we see in Webb's discussion that the broader Left's Trump hatred, via his programmatic Chaos leaning heavily towards authoritarian fascism, is employed to the advantage of the power of the imperium, the Globalist Deep State.

We also see that the schism in Wikileaks is leveraged into a perceived mission to take down poor liddle Hillary. It begs the question, again, of whether the schism was organic or not. But much more importantly, the desired narrative was created in peoples' minds.

The Russians are either unwitting dupes, or witting dupes. They are still babysitting Snowden and his snow job.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Comey is likely even more complicit in getting Trump elected,
At the time, Trump was outraged that Hillary was not indicted, even though Comey said a crime had been committed.

Trump has a 'legitimate' reason to hide his conversations because of this?
Whether you consider it a 'legitimate' reason or not, certainly a very good reason.

This is ridiculous. I stated that after Trump did such they should have been on alert.
So you are indeed saying that Lavrov should have turned down the opportunity of a (semi) private meeting with Trump? Because of the fear that Democratic Party hacks would think such a meeting was inappropriate?

I'm sure that RT would have let Putin or Lavrov on to let them say that they "think something is rotten in Denmark".
They're supposed to go on RT and say that they're worried that Trump is being disingenuously too friendly to Russia? And caution that they think Trump is only doing this because he wants to provide ammunition for Russia's enemies in the US?

Here's the problem. Assuming that Putin and Lavrov aren't omniscient, they have to consider two possible scenarios. (1) Trump is sincerely trying to work with Russia, however ineptly; or (2) he's disingenuously trying to undermine Russian-US relations.

If Putin & Lavrov publicly accuse Trump of scenario (2), and in fact scenario (1) is correct, then they've just completely undermined Trump's efforts. Whereas if (2) is correct, and they say so, they've accomplished absolutely nothing. That is, aside from presenting the appearance of being paranoid conspiracy theorists trying to undermine their best friend in the US.

Putin doesn't have the American translator's notes, or are you saying he does have them?
I thought you were complaining that Trump used only a Russian translator?

They should have told the dipshit not to be so obvious as to walk into the front door of their facility.
According to this report, this is more or less what happened. The Russians didn't want Kushner coming to their embassy. The initial meeting where the Russians discussed a possible back channel with Kushner occurred at Trump Tower, and became public knowledge when the Russians' internal dialog was intercepted by US intelligence officers who leaked to the press. So it seems that there were reasonable attempts at operational security all around.

I have to admit that I have been late to the Omidyar et al. party regarding such as the Snowden business. It seems that the Putineskas, by appearances at least, are too, considering that Omidyar's and Snowden's common connections to Booz Allen et al. have been known for some time.
Omidyar's connection to Booz Allen Hamilton is hardly the same thing as Snowden's. Snowden allegedly hired on to Booz Allen for the specific purpose of obtaining documents to leak. Omidyar is a business partner of Booz Allen, and would have been strongly motivated to prevent the release of the documents.

Has Snowden been called into the Kremlin or the GRU headquarters to inquire about these connections? Likely, they didn't need to IMO.
What are you implying that the "putineskas" would learn about Snowden's Booz Allen connection, if they asked?

What is incoherent, or the least bit suspicious, about the view that Snowden made a serious mistake by trusting his bounty of documents to Glenn Greenwald?

I didn't realize until just now, what a small role Wikileaks played in the Snowden document release.

That is, if I am to take your word that they are such little innocent lambs.
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "they", except that I guess you think everyone involved is spooky.

Why is it that you refer to enemies of the shepherds as "lambs"? That is, a particularly helpless type of little sheep?

What about us: would you describe us Postflavians as "little innocent lambs", bleating helplessly as we await our fate?

If I had been aware of the above links, I would be howling long before that the operators of the Russiagate psy-op would insist upon a cleaner appearing vehicle, such as Wikileaks, to launder this data, as opposed to the Snowden data.
I can't parse this. Who, according to your current analysis, were the operators of the Russiagate psy-op?

Are you saying that you think the DNC emails are completely fake, and that DNC officials never conspired to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders? That is, you believe that Clinton won the Democratic nomination fair and square in 2016?

Why are you saying that the data needed to be "laundered"? The Mueller Report narrative is that Wikileaks "laundered" away the Russian provenance of the data, but they're admitting that the data itself is valid.

Inasmuch as Wikileaks was the apparent source of the data, I don't understand why you say the operators of the Russiagate psy-op would want a cleaner appearing vehicle. The Intercept is not a cleaner appearing vehicle, although perhaps Snowden thought so.

What I'm writing here is clearly insane, but it's the best I can do in response to what you wrote, so don't complain that I'm seeming crazy. I just can't make head or tails of your comments, so I'm asking questions and hoping perhaps clarity will emerge.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
And so we see in Webb's discussion that the broader Left's Trump hatred, via his programmatic Chaos leaning heavily towards authoritarian fascism, is employed to the advantage of the power of the imperium, the Globalist Deep State.
It seems to me that you've studied the hall of mirrors until it's twisted your mind into a pretzel.

The broader Left's hatred of Trump is inevitable, rational & highly functional. The only problem is, the Fake Left and the Billionaire Mass Media has focused on the Fake Russian Collusion story, virtually to the exclusion of any discussion of the many other reasons that Trump needs to be impeached ASAP.

The Russians are either unwitting dupes, or witting dupes. They are still babysitting Snowden and his snow job.
Please explain. What do you see as "Snowden's snow job"? Are you saying that the NSA documents that he obtained through Booz Allen are fake? Are you saying that he intentionally took his documents to Glenn Greenwald, knowing full well that Greenwald would eventually take money from Omidyar and then suppress the vast majority of the documents?

What do you expect the Russians to do about this? Put Snowden in jail and throw away the key, or maybe kill him, because he pretended to release important US classified documents but intentionally screwed it up? Torture him until he tells some version of "the Truth" that would leave you satisfied?

Maybe I should get you a separate website, so that I wouldn't feel obligated to respond to what you're saying. It feels like our only purpose here at the website has devolved to trolling each other.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
At the time, Trump was outraged that Hillary was not indicted, even though Comey said a crime had been committed.
Irrelevant. Comey broke FBI protocol not to effect an election outcome by making his announcement, all the while know that Trump was already under investigation for much worse allegations, if not reality. What comes out of Trump's mouth is not pertinent here.
So you are indeed saying that Lavrov should have turned down the opportunity of a (semi) private meeting with Trump? Because of the fear that Democratic Party hacks would think such a meeting was inappropriate?
That's not what I said is it? I said that they should have been alert that they were being played, unless of course, the Putineskas are in on the psy-op as well.
Here's the problem. Assuming that Putin and Lavrov aren't omniscient, they have to consider two possible scenarios. (1) Trump is sincerely trying to work with Russia, however ineptly; or (2) he's disingenuously trying to undermine Russian-US relations.
It's only a problem for you. If (1) was the case, the Putineskas could simply tell Trump to slow his roll and stop appearing so inept.
I thought you were complaining that Trump used only a Russian translator?
I watch the news Jerry.

There were two translators, and only Putin has any translator's notes. Putin understands English in any case.
According to this report, this is more or less what happened. The Russians didn't want Kushner coming to their embassy. The initial meeting where the Russians discussed a possible back channel with Kushner occurred at Trump Tower, and became public knowledge when the Russians' internal dialog was intercepted by US intelligence officers who leaked to the press. So it seems that there were reasonable attempts at operational security all around.
No, it seems you are proving my point. The Russians should have told Trump not to send his seemingly dipshit son-in-law around, ever, in this fashion.

What a great way to establsih, in the left public's mind, that there is indeed collusion /conspiracy than to take such crappy operational security measures. The Trumpist right public mind doesn't give a shit what happened one way or the other.

Quoting from the MSM now?
Omidyar's connection to Booz Allen Hamilton is hardly the same thing as Snowden's. Snowden allegedly hired on to Booz Allen for the specific purpose of obtaining documents to leak. Omidyar is a business partner of Booz Allen, and would have been strongly motivated to prevent the release of the documents.
Listen to the interview. Sibel Edmonds destroys Snowden.
What are you implying that the "putineskas" would learn about Snowden's Booz Allen connection, if they asked?
If someone in the GRU had watched the same interview (now a year old) they might get concerned. Of course, they probaly figure all the stuff on YouTube is fake newski, so why bother.
What is incoherent, or the least bit suspicious, about the view that Snowden made a serious mistake by trusting his bounty of documents to Glenn Greenwald?

I didn't realize until just now, what a small role Wikileaks played in the Snowden document release.
Snowden was most likely ordered to give it to Greenwald, who works for Omidyar. Greenwald was heavily compromised by his porno operation, which Miss Kitty will be happy to know I mentioned.

The Intercept operation, by the time of DNC and Hillary business, was now to heavily trafficked, and the links too exposed. Thus the need to use a cleaner vehicle.
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "they", except that I guess you think everyone involved is spooky.
The Putineskas. I fixed the original text.
Why is it that you refer to enemies of the shepherds as "lambs"?
Because you keep portraying Russians as such, for some bizarre unfathomable reason.
What about us: would you describe us Postflavians as "little innocent lambs", bleating helplessly as we await our fate?
Yes, of course. What would you say?
I can't parse this. Who, according to your current analysis, were the operators of the Russiagate psy-op?
The same as before.
Are you saying that you think the DNC emails are completely fake, and that DNC officials never conspired to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders? That is, you believe that Clinton won the Democratic nomination fair and square in 2016?
WTF? Why would I do that? Why would you ask that?
Why are you saying that the data needed to be "laundered"? The Mueller Report narrative is that Wikileaks "laundered" away the Russian provenance of the data, but they're admitting that the data itself is valid.
OK, so you can figure out what Mueller means by "laundered", but not what I mean?
Inasmuch as Wikileaks was the apparent source of the data, I don't understand why you say the operators of the Russiagate psy-op would want a cleaner appearing vehicle. The Intercept is not a cleaner appearing vehicle, although perhaps Snowden thought so.
Jerry, that's why one would prefer to use Wikileaks to launder and not use The Intercept.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Please explain. What do you see as "Snowden's snow job"? Are you saying that the NSA documents that he obtained through Booz Allen are fake? Are you saying that he intentionally took his documents to Glenn Greenwald, knowing full well that Greenwald would eventually take money from Omidyar and then suppress the vast majority of the documents?
Listen to the interview.

Greenwald took the money only months after Snowden. If Snowden didn't know, then Snowden's handler did.

Have you seen all the Snowden docs? No, nobody has. So your question is moot.
What do you expect the Russians to do about this? Put Snowden in jail and throw away the key, or maybe kill him, because he pretended to release important US classified documents but intentionally screwed it up? Torture him until he tells some version of "the Truth" that would leave you satisfied?
They should put him in the Hidden Resort, after they fake kill him.

Why are you concerned about my satisfaction, or worse that they, the Putineskas, could achieve such, or desire to satisfy me?
Maybe I should get you a separate website, so that I wouldn't feel obligated to respond to what you're saying. It feels like our only purpose here at the website has devolved to trolling each other.
I am so focused upon Trump because I am certain that he is part of something much larger than the mainstream and alternate narrative of him. That 'something' is part of the next phase of the 3,000+ year-old globalist, JudeoChristianIslamic enterprise. As such, I have not changed one bit, other than to add new pieces to the picture, as presented.

It absolutely feels like you're trolling me, especially whenever apocalyptic minded 'Russia' and the Putineskas becomes attached to the narrative. As far as Assange and Wikileaks is concerned, it feels the same way, but I will allow that both of us have resembled the blind leading the blind much of the time. I have not had much but peripheral focus on Assange, Wikileaks, Snowden, Reality Winner, etc.. But, thanks to your irritations, I now have a much better appreciation for how all this fits together, and confirming my belief that the Global Deep State (that Trump and Putin work for) are running the entire operation as a psy-op, against the rest of humanity. I'm sorry that you don't agree. I understand that you want to belong to a wider zeitgeist system of belief.

Ironically, the 'Western' operation, regarding the use of oligarchs, discussed by Edmonds and Webb, evoke the same zeitgeist as the Putin use of his 'Eastern' oligarchs. But, these 'coincidences' seems to be evidence of nothing these days. Edmond's suggests, rather Atwillian, that the use of names like Reality Winner (or Snowden for Snow Job) is the perverse sense of dark humor, reflecting their impunity, ... or that it is just coincidence again.

No, I do not want a web site. Maybe you should get yourself your own personal website? Or ... I can begin earn my urn, so to speak. I don't really need an urn though. Maybe Uber provides them?
 
Top