info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
URANIUM ONE Probe
40 views
Skip to first unread message
LowRider44M
Oct 18, 2017, 1:24:49 PM10/18/17
to
Senate Judiciary opens probe into Obama-era Russian nuclear bribery case
By John Solomon - 10/17/17 11:38 PM EDT
5,291
13,327
The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, on Wednesday raised the issue in public during questioning of Attorney General Jeff Sessions during an oversight hearing.
The senator cited a series of The Hill stories that showed the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in a racketeering scheme as early as 2009, well before the uranium deal was approved.
"According to government documents and recent news reports, the Justice Department had an ongoing criminal investigation for bribery, extortion, money laundering, into officials for a Russian company making purchase of Uranium One," Grassley said. "That purchase was approved during previous administration and resulted in Russians owning 20 percent of America's uranium mining capacity.
"What are you doing to find out how Russian takeover of American uranium was allowed to occur despite criminal conduct by Russian company that the Obama administration approved to make the purchase?" he asked Sessions.
Sessions responded: "I would offer that some people have gone to jail in that transaction already, but the article talks about other issues. Without confirming or denying existence of any particular investigation, I would say I hear your concerns and they will be reviewed."
Senate Judiciary aides said the committee had sent requests for information to 10 federal agencies involved in the Russian uranium approvals.
ADVERTISEMENT
The committee is discussing other bipartisan requests to make in the coming days, and Grassley also is expected to seek access to potential witnesses soon, escalating from the information requests he made a few years back, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The senator also specifically conveyed in recent letters he no longer accepts the Obama administration's assurances from 2015 that there was no basis to block the Uranium One deal.
"I am not convinced by these assurances," Grassley wrote the Homeland Security Department last week. "The sale of Uranium One resulted in a Russian government takeover of a significant portion of U.S. uranium mining capacity. In light of that fact, very serious questions remain about the basis for the finding that this transaction did not threaten to impair U.S. national security."
Though Wednesday's hearing was scheduled for other purposes, aides said they expected Grassley to ask Sessions questions about a story published in The Hill on Tuesday that disclosed the FBI had uncovered evidence showing Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving bribes, kickbacks and money laundering designed to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business on U.S. soil.
The evidence was first gathered in 2009 and 2010, but Department of Justice officials waited until 2014 to bring any charges. In between that time, President Obama's multi-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) gave approval to Russia's Rosatom to buy a Canadian mining company called Uranium One that controlled 20 percent of America's uranium deposits.
The committee's members at the time included former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband, former President Bill Clinton, collected large speech fees and millions in charitable donations from Russia and other entities interested in the outcome of the decision.
Grassley dispatched letters last week to all the federal agencies whose executives served on the CFIUS when the decision was made, demanding to know whether they were aware of the FBI case before they voted.
He also questioned whether the documented corruption that was uncovered posed a national security threat that should have voided approval of the uranium deal.
"It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction," Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.
"The fact that Rosatom subsidiaries in the United States were under criminal investigation as a result of a U.S. intelligence operation apparently around the time CFIUS approved the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction raises questions about whether that information factored into CFIUS’ decision to approve the transaction," the chairman added.
Grassley has been one of the few congressional leaders to have consistently raised questions about the uranium deal, and in 2015 agencies told his committee they had no national security reasons to reject the Moscow approval.
Those representations, however, made no mention of the FBI probe or the national security issues uncovered by agents, including the fact that Russian officials had compromised an American trucking firm that transported uranium.
Grassley's letters demanded answers from the agencies by no later than Oct. 26.
This story was updated on Oct. 11 at 11:55 a.m.
By John Solomon - 10/17/17 11:38 PM EDT
5,291
13,327
The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, on Wednesday raised the issue in public during questioning of Attorney General Jeff Sessions during an oversight hearing.
The senator cited a series of The Hill stories that showed the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in a racketeering scheme as early as 2009, well before the uranium deal was approved.
"According to government documents and recent news reports, the Justice Department had an ongoing criminal investigation for bribery, extortion, money laundering, into officials for a Russian company making purchase of Uranium One," Grassley said. "That purchase was approved during previous administration and resulted in Russians owning 20 percent of America's uranium mining capacity.
"What are you doing to find out how Russian takeover of American uranium was allowed to occur despite criminal conduct by Russian company that the Obama administration approved to make the purchase?" he asked Sessions.
Sessions responded: "I would offer that some people have gone to jail in that transaction already, but the article talks about other issues. Without confirming or denying existence of any particular investigation, I would say I hear your concerns and they will be reviewed."
Senate Judiciary aides said the committee had sent requests for information to 10 federal agencies involved in the Russian uranium approvals.
ADVERTISEMENT
The committee is discussing other bipartisan requests to make in the coming days, and Grassley also is expected to seek access to potential witnesses soon, escalating from the information requests he made a few years back, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The senator also specifically conveyed in recent letters he no longer accepts the Obama administration's assurances from 2015 that there was no basis to block the Uranium One deal.
"I am not convinced by these assurances," Grassley wrote the Homeland Security Department last week. "The sale of Uranium One resulted in a Russian government takeover of a significant portion of U.S. uranium mining capacity. In light of that fact, very serious questions remain about the basis for the finding that this transaction did not threaten to impair U.S. national security."
Though Wednesday's hearing was scheduled for other purposes, aides said they expected Grassley to ask Sessions questions about a story published in The Hill on Tuesday that disclosed the FBI had uncovered evidence showing Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving bribes, kickbacks and money laundering designed to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business on U.S. soil.
The evidence was first gathered in 2009 and 2010, but Department of Justice officials waited until 2014 to bring any charges. In between that time, President Obama's multi-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) gave approval to Russia's Rosatom to buy a Canadian mining company called Uranium One that controlled 20 percent of America's uranium deposits.
The committee's members at the time included former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband, former President Bill Clinton, collected large speech fees and millions in charitable donations from Russia and other entities interested in the outcome of the decision.
Grassley dispatched letters last week to all the federal agencies whose executives served on the CFIUS when the decision was made, demanding to know whether they were aware of the FBI case before they voted.
He also questioned whether the documented corruption that was uncovered posed a national security threat that should have voided approval of the uranium deal.
"It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction," Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.
"The fact that Rosatom subsidiaries in the United States were under criminal investigation as a result of a U.S. intelligence operation apparently around the time CFIUS approved the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction raises questions about whether that information factored into CFIUS’ decision to approve the transaction," the chairman added.
Grassley has been one of the few congressional leaders to have consistently raised questions about the uranium deal, and in 2015 agencies told his committee they had no national security reasons to reject the Moscow approval.
Those representations, however, made no mention of the FBI probe or the national security issues uncovered by agents, including the fact that Russian officials had compromised an American trucking firm that transported uranium.
Grassley's letters demanded answers from the agencies by no later than Oct. 26.
This story was updated on Oct. 11 at 11:55 a.m.
LowRider44M
Oct 22, 2017, 12:40:54 PM10/22/17
to
Crooked Former FBI Head Mueller Hand Delivered Uranium to Russians on Airport Tarmac
October 22, 2017 by Jim Hoft
Guest post by Joe Hoft
Every day more information is coming out on the Uranium One deal that leads to more and more questions concerning the corruption in the Justice Department and Obama Administration. The US gave 20% of its uranium to the nation Democrats describe as America’s number one enemy – Russia.
As reported at zerohedge.com in June 2017 –
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated the transfer highly enriched uranium (HEU) previously confiscated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during a 2006 “nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices,” a newly leaked classified cable shows.
The classified cable released by WikiLeaks was authored by Hillary Clinton’s State Department on August 17th, 2009. In the cable it states –
Over two years ago Russia requested a ten-gram sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) seized in early 2006 in Georgia during a nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices. The seized HEU was transferred to U.S. custody and is being held at a secure DOE facility. In response to the Russian request, the Georgian Government authorized the United States to share a sample of the material with the Russians for forensic analysis.
The cable also states that, “Given Russia’s reluctance to act so far, FBI Mueller’s delivery of this sample will underscore to Russia our commitment to follow through on this case.” It continues in stating, “Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives to Moscow on September 21.”
The cable summarizes that, “We regret that the April visit by Director Mueller could not take place due to a scheduling conflict.” and makes a final request that, “We require that the transfer of this material be conducted at the airport, on the tarmac near by the plane, upon arrival of the Director’s aircraft.”
Now knowing that the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton hid the FBI investigation into the Uranium One deal, this cable brings on new meaning and leads to numerous questions.
Why did Obama and Clinton agree to provide this uranium delivered by Mueller to Russia in the first place?
An article by the Atlantic from April 2008 tells the fascinating story of the smuggler in the country of Georgia who was arrested trying to sell uranium to potential buyers. The smuggler, Oleg Vladimirovich Khintsagov, on January 31, 2006, was apprehended by authorities carrying 100 grams of highly enriched uranium tucked into a plastic bag in his tattered leather coat.
A sample of the uranium captured during this sting operation was provided to the Russians who analyzed it and determined that it was indeed highly enriched uranium (HEU). In the Atlantic article it states that the Russians at first didn’t respond to requests from Georgia on the uranium and at no time asked for the uranium back. As a matter of fact the Russians worked hard to deny that the uranium came from Russia in the first place. So why did the Obama Administration hand deliver 10 grams of HEU to Russia in 2009 and when did Russia begin asking for another sample of the uranium and why did the memo not mention that the Russians had already obtained a sample of this uranium and determined that it was HEU?
Another question is why did Clinton’s Secretary of State request that FBI Director Mueller deliver the sample of HEU to Russia and why was the transfer in April cancelled and postponed to September?
Of all people, why would the Head of the FBI be selected to transfer uranium to Russia? It would seem that the US has a number of individuals who could perform this transfer and it would seem that FBI Director Mueller would have enough on his plate in the US. When Mueller couldn’t make the transfer in April the transfer was postponed to September so Mueller could be there.
The fact that Mueller needed to perform the transfer should raise numerous red flags. It’s been widely reported about Mueller’s conflicts of interest with his recent appointment as special counsel in the Russia investigation.
This past week information was reported that prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium through the approved sale of Uranium One, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill.
From Tuesday’s report we found out that the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump. We also know that former FBI Director Robert Mueller was the Head of the FBI at this time and was involved in this deal.
Sara Carter of Circa News interviewed Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for an FBI informant who said her client “is not only afraid of the Russian people, but he is afraid of the US government because of the threats the Obama administration made against him.” The individual in question faces criminal charges put in place by Obama’s Justice Department if he talks about the FBI investigation.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 22, 2017, 8:55:08 PM10/22/17
to
Media Matters for America calls Jim Hoft "one of the worst purveyors
of false information on the internet", and cites 20 times he was
"absurdly wrong":
http://tinyurl.com/yb4avwmy
Snopes has half-a-dozen articles debunking dubious crap published
by 'The Gateway Pundit':
https://www.snopes.com/tag/the-gateway-pundit/
Hoft is number 769 in the Encyclopedia of American loons:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/10/769-jim-hoft.html
Washington Post said Hoft's blog is "known for spreading hoaxes".
And they gave several examples too.
http://tinyurl.com/yash7cod
Big surprise the idiot is scared of Mueller and trying to smear him.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 30, 2017, 8:15:23 PM10/30/17
to
Will Manafort Sing?
NY Times Op Ed
By Nicholas Kristof
OCT. 30, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/y9v87hdq
Excerpts:
Manafort may now be facing the prospect of years in prison, and the indictment seems meticulously rooted in facts and evidence that Robert Mueller accumulated; if I were Manafort, I’d be very worried. Presumably that was the intention, and one purpose of the indictment is to gain leverage to persuade Manafort to testify against others in exchange for leniency.
If Manafort pursues his self-interest, my bet is that he’ll sing. That then can become a cascade: He testifies against others, who in turn are pressured to testify against still others. And all this makes it more difficult to protect the man at the center if indeed he has violated the law.
Much the same goes for Manafort’s aide, Rick Gates, who was also indicted, and for George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, who pled guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about a Russian contact. The Papadopoulos revelation is particularly interesting because it goes precisely to the issue of collusion, and it’s not just an allegation — it’s a guilty plea.
...
Another point worth pondering is how it is that President Trump chose as his campaign chair someone like Manafort whose reputation in the political world was less about his political brilliance than about his ties to Russia and Ukraine (including some of the most corrupt people there) and his general shadiness. It’s said that Jared Kushner was among those advocating to hire Manafort, so the obvious question is: Why?
Maybe there simply wasn’t adequate vetting, even though news organizations quickly found problems that led to Manafort’s firing. But the inclination to hire someone so close to Moscow does raise questions about the Trump inner circle’s predilection to hire someone linked to Russia and Ukraine.
We’re still not sure whether there was collusion between President Trump and Russia, but we certainly do know that Russia interfered with the U.S. election and may even have affected the outcome, although that is impossible to know for sure. Nothing could be more serious, or more deserving of careful investigation.
President Trump tweeted this morning that there was “no collusion” and again urged greater focus on the supposed crimes of Hillary Clinton. By that he presumably means the uranium deal, which has conservatives in a frenzy—but it is simply absurd to think that there is some parallel.
Look, it was The Times that in 2015 helped uncover and publicize the uranium arrangement, but it has been flagrantly taken out of context by Fox News and its ilk. For starters, there seems to be a suspicion on the right that American uranium is going to Russia, while in fact there’s no export license — so the uranium stays in America. More important, this was a non-controversial deal that an interagency committee approved, apparently unanimously, at a level far below Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Every bit of evidence says that Clinton never even weighed in on it. So the notion that this is somehow a serious scandal parallel to Moscow’s work to overturn an American presidential election is just comical.
...
Any firing of Mueller would lead many fair-minded people to assume that Trump is hiding criminal behavior, perhaps treason. There would be a push for impeachment, a boost to Congressional investigations, and the presidency would be hobbled — along with the United States itself — for years to come. Trump set in motion today’s actions when he fired James Comey, and I hope he understands that firing Mueller would probably also set in motion the complete unraveling of his presidency.
***
NY Times Op Ed
By NORMAN EISEN, NOAH BOOKBINDER and BARRY BERKE
OCT. 30, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/y7ewz8xx
Excerpts:
Expect to hear this line repeatedly from the president and his defenders: The indictments, on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, are a vindication of President Trump because he was not charged and because of the absence of allegations about campaign collusion with Russia. But they’re wrong — the president should be very worried.
For one thing, it is now clear that President Trump closely relied upon Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates while they were engaged in alleged criminal activity. That is a damning indictment of the president’s judgment. Their prosecution will hang over him and his administration for the foreseeable future, since these proceedings will continue for many months, and perhaps years. And these are unlikely to be the last of the charges pursued by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, who is also reported to be looking at other actors, including the president himself.
The idea that Mr. Manafort’s indictment vindicates Mr. Trump also ignores how complex criminal investigations typically proceed, and the attendant peril Mr. Trump now faces. In our half century of collective experience prosecuting and defending criminal cases, we have watched repeatedly as prosecutors charged lower-level individuals with readily provable offenses that are distinct from the core conduct and targets that are the primary focus of the prosecutor’s investigation.
It’s also significant that Mr. Mueller threw the book at Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates. Because the federal sentencing guidelines recommend a significant prison sentence for money-laundering offenses and are largely driven by the dollar amounts involved in the crime, this indictment, which involves millions of dollars, puts tremendous pressure on them to make a cooperation deal with the special counsel’s office to try to reduce the lengthy prison sentences each could face.
The power of this “squeeze play” approach is demonstrated by the other filing released today, reflecting a guilty plea by George Papadopoulos, a former Trump foreign policy adviser who admits to communications with foreign individuals during the campaign, including at least one about the Russians’ possessing “dirt” concerning Hillary Clinton “in the form of ‘thousands of emails.’ ” Mr. Papadopoulos lied about these engagements when questioned, and was caught doing so. When confronted with the prospect of jail time, he decided to cooperate. His statements constitute yet another troubling quantum of evidence that the Trump campaign may have known about and encouraged the Russian intrusion on our elections — so-called collusion.
The Papadopoulos plea was finalized this month, and it’s no coincidence that Mr. Mueller held off announcing it until today. It’s a clear signal to Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates about how they should proceed — and how much the special counsel wants them to. Mr. Manafort was privy to the inner workings of the Trump campaign, and he attended the now-famous June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner and apparent Russian emissaries. Should Mr. Manafort cooperate, he would be an important witness as to what those in attendance said about the event before, during and after — and whether Mr. Trump himself was briefed on it.
Mr. Gates, though less well known, was also intertwined with Mr. Trump, including during the administration itself. If Mr. Mueller can secure his cooperation through a plea or immunity, he too can offer a wealth of information, including what he did, who he met with and what he discussed in his White House visits. To take another example, Mr. Gates’ colleagues in a pro-Trump outside group he worked with in the first months of the administration included Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign’s digital director. Mr. Mueller would surely be interested in knowing whether Mr. Parscale ever offered any indication that he was aware of or cooperated with Russian cyber-intrusions during the campaign.
We believe the greatest risk to Mr. Trump remains the possibility that he obstructed justice by firing the former F.B.I. director James Comey. The fact that Mr. Mueller has found enough evidence to bring credible charges in just five months suggests that he is moving forward with determination and skill. For anyone in the path of his investigation who has committed an offense, that cannot be welcome news.
Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of CREW and a former federal corruption prosecutor. Barry Berke is a co-chairman of the litigation department at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, where he is a partner specializing in white-collar criminal defense.
***
Yeah, but what do YOU think about all this, Andy?
***
‘You’re Fucked,’ Nixon Tells Trump from Hell.
White House on Lockdown After Television Is Hurled Out Window
According to witnesses, there was the sound of a man screaming,
"Fucking Manafort" and then a loud crash.
Trump Unsure Who This Manafort Person Is
“The name doesn't ring a bell,” Donald J. Trump said.
“I’ll have to have someone Google him and figure out
exactly who he’s supposed to be,” the President said.
Trump now claims Manafort was working for Hillary
Trump Says Mueller Just Called Him and Said
He’s the Most Innocent Person Ever
“He said I was the most innocent person he’d ever come across,
and maybe in history,” the President said, of the special counsel.
Pence Asks Jesus to Rapture Him Up Before Mueller Indicts Him.
Study: Nation Could Save Time, Money by Impeaching Pence at Same Time
Millions Disappointed It Wasn’t Jared
“Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled about Manafort,”
one downcast American said. “But he’s no Jared.”
Eric Trump Kind of Stoked
That Dad Never Let Him Near Anything Important
Melania Wondering How Fast She Can Flee in Heels
Love is a weird thing. Yesterday I had never heard of
George Papadopoulos, and yet today I adore him more
than any other person on earth.
NY Times Op Ed
By Nicholas Kristof
OCT. 30, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/y9v87hdq
Excerpts:
Manafort may now be facing the prospect of years in prison, and the indictment seems meticulously rooted in facts and evidence that Robert Mueller accumulated; if I were Manafort, I’d be very worried. Presumably that was the intention, and one purpose of the indictment is to gain leverage to persuade Manafort to testify against others in exchange for leniency.
If Manafort pursues his self-interest, my bet is that he’ll sing. That then can become a cascade: He testifies against others, who in turn are pressured to testify against still others. And all this makes it more difficult to protect the man at the center if indeed he has violated the law.
Much the same goes for Manafort’s aide, Rick Gates, who was also indicted, and for George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, who pled guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about a Russian contact. The Papadopoulos revelation is particularly interesting because it goes precisely to the issue of collusion, and it’s not just an allegation — it’s a guilty plea.
...
Another point worth pondering is how it is that President Trump chose as his campaign chair someone like Manafort whose reputation in the political world was less about his political brilliance than about his ties to Russia and Ukraine (including some of the most corrupt people there) and his general shadiness. It’s said that Jared Kushner was among those advocating to hire Manafort, so the obvious question is: Why?
Maybe there simply wasn’t adequate vetting, even though news organizations quickly found problems that led to Manafort’s firing. But the inclination to hire someone so close to Moscow does raise questions about the Trump inner circle’s predilection to hire someone linked to Russia and Ukraine.
We’re still not sure whether there was collusion between President Trump and Russia, but we certainly do know that Russia interfered with the U.S. election and may even have affected the outcome, although that is impossible to know for sure. Nothing could be more serious, or more deserving of careful investigation.
President Trump tweeted this morning that there was “no collusion” and again urged greater focus on the supposed crimes of Hillary Clinton. By that he presumably means the uranium deal, which has conservatives in a frenzy—but it is simply absurd to think that there is some parallel.
Look, it was The Times that in 2015 helped uncover and publicize the uranium arrangement, but it has been flagrantly taken out of context by Fox News and its ilk. For starters, there seems to be a suspicion on the right that American uranium is going to Russia, while in fact there’s no export license — so the uranium stays in America. More important, this was a non-controversial deal that an interagency committee approved, apparently unanimously, at a level far below Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Every bit of evidence says that Clinton never even weighed in on it. So the notion that this is somehow a serious scandal parallel to Moscow’s work to overturn an American presidential election is just comical.
...
Any firing of Mueller would lead many fair-minded people to assume that Trump is hiding criminal behavior, perhaps treason. There would be a push for impeachment, a boost to Congressional investigations, and the presidency would be hobbled — along with the United States itself — for years to come. Trump set in motion today’s actions when he fired James Comey, and I hope he understands that firing Mueller would probably also set in motion the complete unraveling of his presidency.
***
NY Times Op Ed
By NORMAN EISEN, NOAH BOOKBINDER and BARRY BERKE
OCT. 30, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/y7ewz8xx
Excerpts:
Expect to hear this line repeatedly from the president and his defenders: The indictments, on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, are a vindication of President Trump because he was not charged and because of the absence of allegations about campaign collusion with Russia. But they’re wrong — the president should be very worried.
For one thing, it is now clear that President Trump closely relied upon Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates while they were engaged in alleged criminal activity. That is a damning indictment of the president’s judgment. Their prosecution will hang over him and his administration for the foreseeable future, since these proceedings will continue for many months, and perhaps years. And these are unlikely to be the last of the charges pursued by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, who is also reported to be looking at other actors, including the president himself.
The idea that Mr. Manafort’s indictment vindicates Mr. Trump also ignores how complex criminal investigations typically proceed, and the attendant peril Mr. Trump now faces. In our half century of collective experience prosecuting and defending criminal cases, we have watched repeatedly as prosecutors charged lower-level individuals with readily provable offenses that are distinct from the core conduct and targets that are the primary focus of the prosecutor’s investigation.
It’s also significant that Mr. Mueller threw the book at Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates. Because the federal sentencing guidelines recommend a significant prison sentence for money-laundering offenses and are largely driven by the dollar amounts involved in the crime, this indictment, which involves millions of dollars, puts tremendous pressure on them to make a cooperation deal with the special counsel’s office to try to reduce the lengthy prison sentences each could face.
The power of this “squeeze play” approach is demonstrated by the other filing released today, reflecting a guilty plea by George Papadopoulos, a former Trump foreign policy adviser who admits to communications with foreign individuals during the campaign, including at least one about the Russians’ possessing “dirt” concerning Hillary Clinton “in the form of ‘thousands of emails.’ ” Mr. Papadopoulos lied about these engagements when questioned, and was caught doing so. When confronted with the prospect of jail time, he decided to cooperate. His statements constitute yet another troubling quantum of evidence that the Trump campaign may have known about and encouraged the Russian intrusion on our elections — so-called collusion.
The Papadopoulos plea was finalized this month, and it’s no coincidence that Mr. Mueller held off announcing it until today. It’s a clear signal to Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates about how they should proceed — and how much the special counsel wants them to. Mr. Manafort was privy to the inner workings of the Trump campaign, and he attended the now-famous June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner and apparent Russian emissaries. Should Mr. Manafort cooperate, he would be an important witness as to what those in attendance said about the event before, during and after — and whether Mr. Trump himself was briefed on it.
Mr. Gates, though less well known, was also intertwined with Mr. Trump, including during the administration itself. If Mr. Mueller can secure his cooperation through a plea or immunity, he too can offer a wealth of information, including what he did, who he met with and what he discussed in his White House visits. To take another example, Mr. Gates’ colleagues in a pro-Trump outside group he worked with in the first months of the administration included Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign’s digital director. Mr. Mueller would surely be interested in knowing whether Mr. Parscale ever offered any indication that he was aware of or cooperated with Russian cyber-intrusions during the campaign.
We believe the greatest risk to Mr. Trump remains the possibility that he obstructed justice by firing the former F.B.I. director James Comey. The fact that Mr. Mueller has found enough evidence to bring credible charges in just five months suggests that he is moving forward with determination and skill. For anyone in the path of his investigation who has committed an offense, that cannot be welcome news.
Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of CREW and a former federal corruption prosecutor. Barry Berke is a co-chairman of the litigation department at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, where he is a partner specializing in white-collar criminal defense.
***
Yeah, but what do YOU think about all this, Andy?
***
‘You’re Fucked,’ Nixon Tells Trump from Hell.
White House on Lockdown After Television Is Hurled Out Window
According to witnesses, there was the sound of a man screaming,
"Fucking Manafort" and then a loud crash.
Trump Unsure Who This Manafort Person Is
“The name doesn't ring a bell,” Donald J. Trump said.
“I’ll have to have someone Google him and figure out
exactly who he’s supposed to be,” the President said.
Trump now claims Manafort was working for Hillary
Trump Says Mueller Just Called Him and Said
He’s the Most Innocent Person Ever
“He said I was the most innocent person he’d ever come across,
and maybe in history,” the President said, of the special counsel.
Pence Asks Jesus to Rapture Him Up Before Mueller Indicts Him.
Study: Nation Could Save Time, Money by Impeaching Pence at Same Time
Millions Disappointed It Wasn’t Jared
“Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled about Manafort,”
one downcast American said. “But he’s no Jared.”
Eric Trump Kind of Stoked
That Dad Never Let Him Near Anything Important
Melania Wondering How Fast She Can Flee in Heels
Love is a weird thing. Yesterday I had never heard of
George Papadopoulos, and yet today I adore him more
than any other person on earth.
whisperoutloud
Oct 31, 2017, 12:40:55 PM10/31/17
to
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/10/31/up-200-killed-north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-report/816276001/
hey this is a great place to work, wow.
how many more peeps can they get to take
the place of these poor bastards who just
got sent away to hell? Karma dude.
slider
Oct 31, 2017, 1:25:30 PM10/31/17
to
cannon-fodder in the front-line ranks!
("forward he said, from the rear, and the front ranks died..." --pink
floyd)
every society has them, uses them, puts 'em to work...
that's how 'civilised we... are!?
up the workers! (yeah 'right up' the workers hah!)
wonderful world/society...
not.
whisperoutloud
Oct 31, 2017, 8:00:29 PM10/31/17
to
fuck it, fire up the B-52's and hit these pricks
at the border (ISIS). This is total bullshit
whacking people in NYC. Unload on these cocksucking
douchebags. They are all running home now so get
them as they cross borders. Run for the border
motherfuckers. We got something for your ass.
Magic carpet bomb them. We got your magic carpet
ride right here pally. So hello to the old school
B-52's, they still can bomb the fuck out of you.
at the border (ISIS). This is total bullshit
whacking people in NYC. Unload on these cocksucking
douchebags. They are all running home now so get
them as they cross borders. Run for the border
motherfuckers. We got something for your ass.
Magic carpet bomb them. We got your magic carpet
ride right here pally. So hello to the old school
B-52's, they still can bomb the fuck out of you.
thang ornerythinchus
Nov 1, 2017, 12:11:14 AM11/1/17
to
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:15:22 -0700 (PDT), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Will Manafort Sing?
>
Tl:Dr
Word is Papadopolous has been wearing a wire for the last 4 months.
Mueller is a fucking attack dog. He smells blood, a great deal of
bright red highly oxygenated blood.
If I were Trump and looking at my son or son in law being amongst the
eventual defendants, I would start a fucking nuclear war. That would
fuck Mueller and his cohorts off - a major state of emergency.
Trump is the present most dangerous person in the world. If he
ignites WW3, expect the US to never, ever be the same.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority,
but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Marcus Aurelius
Meditations
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Will Manafort Sing?
>
Tl:Dr
Word is Papadopolous has been wearing a wire for the last 4 months.
Mueller is a fucking attack dog. He smells blood, a great deal of
bright red highly oxygenated blood.
If I were Trump and looking at my son or son in law being amongst the
eventual defendants, I would start a fucking nuclear war. That would
fuck Mueller and his cohorts off - a major state of emergency.
Trump is the present most dangerous person in the world. If he
ignites WW3, expect the US to never, ever be the same.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority,
but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Marcus Aurelius
Meditations
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jeremy H. Donovan
Nov 1, 2017, 1:40:56 AM11/1/17
to
Robert Reich says:
The Russian government's social media campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 election went much further than previously thought. An estimated 126 million Americans saw posts made by Russian backed accounts, according to new reports Facebook has provided to congressional investigators. That's roughly a third of the nation's population.
Last month we also learned that a Russian company with ties to the Kremlin created at least 470 fake accounts on the site and purchased $100,000 in political advertisements targeting U.S. voters ahead of the election. Many of the ads included messages intended to stoke racial divisions and exacerbate political differences in key swing districts.
The precision and sophistication of these campaigns is suspicious. As chair of the Senate intelligence committee Mark Warner noted, "How did [Russian operatives] know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?” Both Mueller and congressional investigators are now exploring whether the Trump campaign's data collection operation led by Jared Kushner shared information with Russian operatives. If they did, it would be a clear case of collusion.
The Russian government's social media campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 election went much further than previously thought. An estimated 126 million Americans saw posts made by Russian backed accounts, according to new reports Facebook has provided to congressional investigators. That's roughly a third of the nation's population.
Last month we also learned that a Russian company with ties to the Kremlin created at least 470 fake accounts on the site and purchased $100,000 in political advertisements targeting U.S. voters ahead of the election. Many of the ads included messages intended to stoke racial divisions and exacerbate political differences in key swing districts.
The precision and sophistication of these campaigns is suspicious. As chair of the Senate intelligence committee Mark Warner noted, "How did [Russian operatives] know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?” Both Mueller and congressional investigators are now exploring whether the Trump campaign's data collection operation led by Jared Kushner shared information with Russian operatives. If they did, it would be a clear case of collusion.
thang ornerythinchus
Nov 1, 2017, 2:49:46 AM11/1/17
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Nov 2, 2017, 1:48:39 PM11/2/17
to
I posted the full text of Reich's remarks anyway.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Nov 2, 2017, 6:37:52 PM11/2/17
to
Trump’s Female Accusers Feel Forgotten. A Lawsuit May Change That.
By MEGAN TWOHEY
NOV. 1, 2017
While allegations of sexual misconduct against powerful men in recent weeks have drawn wide public support and prompted quick response, women who came forward during the presidential race with accusations against Donald J. Trump said they spent the past year feeling dismissed and forgotten.
“With Trump, it was all brushed under the rug,” said Temple Taggart, who claimed Mr. Trump kissed her on the mouth when she was competing in his Miss USA pageant in 1997.
But that could change if a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who accused Mr. Trump of unwanted sexual advances is allowed to proceed in New York State Supreme Court, a legal ruling that could come before the end of the year. Lawyers in the suit sought a subpoena seeking all Trump campaign records related to his female accusers. If the case advances, the accusers could be deposed, going up against Mr. Trump yet again.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit — Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Mr. Trump’s show “The Apprentice” — is represented by the law firm of Gloria Allred, who has helped bring cases against Bill Cosby and other high-profile defendants. They claimed that Mr. Trump defamed Ms. Zervos during the campaign when he repeatedly described her and other accusers’ accounts as “lies” and “nonsense” and said the women either were being put forward by his opponent Hillary Clinton’s campaign or were motivated to come forward by getting “10 minutes of fame,” according to the complaint.
Mr. Trump has sought to dismiss or stay the case, claiming that a sitting president cannot be sued in state court and that his comments amount to political speech, arguments that were reaffirmed by his legal team in a brief filed on Tuesday. But lawyers for Ms. Zervos point to the United States Supreme Court ruling that allowed Paula Jones to bring a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton while he was in office, and several law professors have filed briefs supporting the legal grounds for such a suit.
Temple Taggart accused Mr. Trump of kissing her on the mouth when she was competing in his Miss USA pageant in 1997. Credit Chad Hurst/Getty Images
Among those who said they would embrace the opportunity to provide a deposition in the case is Jessica Leeds, who has accused Mr. Trump of grabbing her breasts and trying to put his hand up her skirt during a plane ride several decades ago. “I would do it — I’m not afraid,” Ms. Leeds said.
When she spoke out last year, Mr. Trump denied her allegation and insinuated that Ms. Leeds was not attractive enough for that to have happened. “Believe me,” he said. “She would not be my first choice.”
Asked about the subpoena stemming from the lawsuit at a news conference last month, Mr. Trump said it was “totally fake news.”
“It’s made-up stuff, and it’s disgraceful, what happens,” he said. “But that happens in the world of politics.”
During the campaign, more than 10 women made allegations against Mr. Trump ranging from unwanted touching to sexual assault.
Most of them spoke out after the release of an “Access Hollywood” tape that captured him bragging about kissing women and grabbing their private parts without invitation.
Mr. Trump insisted that he had never engaged in the behavior he described and dismissed his own comments as “locker room talk.” When woman after woman went public with accusations, he denied every one of them.
And when Ms. Zervos made her claim, saying that Mr. Trump had groped and kissed her without her consent at his office in New York City and a hotel in Los Angeles in 2007, he said that he had never met her “at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately.”
The accusers, varying in age and geographic location, had never met one another, and their allegations stretched back to the 1980s. Some said they had run into Mr. Trump through work, while others said they had had chance encounters with him.
Ms. Taggart and several others said they had spent the past year in a mix of disbelief, anger and occasional fear as they watched Mr. Trump call them liars, threaten to sue them and then win an election to the White House.
Ms. Zervos declined to comment, but in the lawsuit, her lawyers say that “Mr. Trump knowingly, intentionally and maliciously threw each and every one of these women under the bus, with conscious disregard of the impact that repeatedly calling them liars would have upon their lives and reputations.”
The suit, which is before Judge Jennifer Schecter, alleges emotional harm and about $3,000 in economic damage. But Ms. Allred has said the purpose of the lawsuit is not financial, but rather to expose the truth.
Jessica Leeds, a businesswoman at a paper company, was sitting next to Donald J. Trump on a flight to New York in the early 1980s. She told The Times that he lifted the armrest and began to grope her.
Legal experts point out that Mr. Trump could eventually be deposed or asked to testify, and that if he lied under oath, it would be grounds for Congress to impeach him, as happened with Mr. Clinton.
Marc Kasowitz, Mr. Trump’s lawyer in the case, has made a variety of legal arguments seeking its dismissal. He has argued that the Constitution’s supremacy clause prevents a state court from hearing an action against a sitting president, and that even if the New York court disagreed, it should stay the case during the Trump presidency to prevent “a private witch hunt that could threaten to interfere with the operations of the executive branch and the federal government.”
Mr. Kasowitz has also argued that because the allegedly defamatory statements were made during a national political campaign, they should be viewed as “part of the expected fiery rhetoric, hyperbole and opinion that is squarely protected by the First Amendment.”
The day after Mr. Trump was sworn in as president in January, some of his accusers marched in Washington, drawing cheers from fellow protesters, including the actress Ashley Judd.
“She was telling us to stay strong, that we did the right thing,” Ms. Taggart said.
Since then, Ms. Judd has helped to unleash an avalanche of accusations against the film producer Harvey Weinstein, leading to his dismissal from his company and inspiring others to go public with complaints about other prominent male bosses.
Rachel Crooks, who said that Mr. Trump kissed her on the mouth in 2005 when she was working as a young receptionist at Trump Tower in Manhattan, has been heartened to see the recent allegations bring about change.
But she could not help seeing a contrast to how things played out for the Trump accusers.
“You do wonder,” Ms. Crooks said, “how can the country forget about us?”
By MEGAN TWOHEY
NOV. 1, 2017
While allegations of sexual misconduct against powerful men in recent weeks have drawn wide public support and prompted quick response, women who came forward during the presidential race with accusations against Donald J. Trump said they spent the past year feeling dismissed and forgotten.
“With Trump, it was all brushed under the rug,” said Temple Taggart, who claimed Mr. Trump kissed her on the mouth when she was competing in his Miss USA pageant in 1997.
But that could change if a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who accused Mr. Trump of unwanted sexual advances is allowed to proceed in New York State Supreme Court, a legal ruling that could come before the end of the year. Lawyers in the suit sought a subpoena seeking all Trump campaign records related to his female accusers. If the case advances, the accusers could be deposed, going up against Mr. Trump yet again.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit — Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Mr. Trump’s show “The Apprentice” — is represented by the law firm of Gloria Allred, who has helped bring cases against Bill Cosby and other high-profile defendants. They claimed that Mr. Trump defamed Ms. Zervos during the campaign when he repeatedly described her and other accusers’ accounts as “lies” and “nonsense” and said the women either were being put forward by his opponent Hillary Clinton’s campaign or were motivated to come forward by getting “10 minutes of fame,” according to the complaint.
Mr. Trump has sought to dismiss or stay the case, claiming that a sitting president cannot be sued in state court and that his comments amount to political speech, arguments that were reaffirmed by his legal team in a brief filed on Tuesday. But lawyers for Ms. Zervos point to the United States Supreme Court ruling that allowed Paula Jones to bring a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton while he was in office, and several law professors have filed briefs supporting the legal grounds for such a suit.
Temple Taggart accused Mr. Trump of kissing her on the mouth when she was competing in his Miss USA pageant in 1997. Credit Chad Hurst/Getty Images
Among those who said they would embrace the opportunity to provide a deposition in the case is Jessica Leeds, who has accused Mr. Trump of grabbing her breasts and trying to put his hand up her skirt during a plane ride several decades ago. “I would do it — I’m not afraid,” Ms. Leeds said.
When she spoke out last year, Mr. Trump denied her allegation and insinuated that Ms. Leeds was not attractive enough for that to have happened. “Believe me,” he said. “She would not be my first choice.”
Asked about the subpoena stemming from the lawsuit at a news conference last month, Mr. Trump said it was “totally fake news.”
“It’s made-up stuff, and it’s disgraceful, what happens,” he said. “But that happens in the world of politics.”
During the campaign, more than 10 women made allegations against Mr. Trump ranging from unwanted touching to sexual assault.
Most of them spoke out after the release of an “Access Hollywood” tape that captured him bragging about kissing women and grabbing their private parts without invitation.
Mr. Trump insisted that he had never engaged in the behavior he described and dismissed his own comments as “locker room talk.” When woman after woman went public with accusations, he denied every one of them.
And when Ms. Zervos made her claim, saying that Mr. Trump had groped and kissed her without her consent at his office in New York City and a hotel in Los Angeles in 2007, he said that he had never met her “at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately.”
The accusers, varying in age and geographic location, had never met one another, and their allegations stretched back to the 1980s. Some said they had run into Mr. Trump through work, while others said they had had chance encounters with him.
Ms. Taggart and several others said they had spent the past year in a mix of disbelief, anger and occasional fear as they watched Mr. Trump call them liars, threaten to sue them and then win an election to the White House.
Ms. Zervos declined to comment, but in the lawsuit, her lawyers say that “Mr. Trump knowingly, intentionally and maliciously threw each and every one of these women under the bus, with conscious disregard of the impact that repeatedly calling them liars would have upon their lives and reputations.”
The suit, which is before Judge Jennifer Schecter, alleges emotional harm and about $3,000 in economic damage. But Ms. Allred has said the purpose of the lawsuit is not financial, but rather to expose the truth.
Jessica Leeds, a businesswoman at a paper company, was sitting next to Donald J. Trump on a flight to New York in the early 1980s. She told The Times that he lifted the armrest and began to grope her.
Legal experts point out that Mr. Trump could eventually be deposed or asked to testify, and that if he lied under oath, it would be grounds for Congress to impeach him, as happened with Mr. Clinton.
Marc Kasowitz, Mr. Trump’s lawyer in the case, has made a variety of legal arguments seeking its dismissal. He has argued that the Constitution’s supremacy clause prevents a state court from hearing an action against a sitting president, and that even if the New York court disagreed, it should stay the case during the Trump presidency to prevent “a private witch hunt that could threaten to interfere with the operations of the executive branch and the federal government.”
Mr. Kasowitz has also argued that because the allegedly defamatory statements were made during a national political campaign, they should be viewed as “part of the expected fiery rhetoric, hyperbole and opinion that is squarely protected by the First Amendment.”
The day after Mr. Trump was sworn in as president in January, some of his accusers marched in Washington, drawing cheers from fellow protesters, including the actress Ashley Judd.
“She was telling us to stay strong, that we did the right thing,” Ms. Taggart said.
Since then, Ms. Judd has helped to unleash an avalanche of accusations against the film producer Harvey Weinstein, leading to his dismissal from his company and inspiring others to go public with complaints about other prominent male bosses.
Rachel Crooks, who said that Mr. Trump kissed her on the mouth in 2005 when she was working as a young receptionist at Trump Tower in Manhattan, has been heartened to see the recent allegations bring about change.
But she could not help seeing a contrast to how things played out for the Trump accusers.
“You do wonder,” Ms. Crooks said, “how can the country forget about us?”
thang ornerythinchus
Nov 3, 2017, 7:52:37 PM11/3/17
to
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:25:25 -0000, slider <sli...@nanashram.com>
wrote:
Slider he's talking about North Korea, not the western world. DPRK is
very different to the world at large - it's a bit like a fucking virus
growing on agar in a petrie dish with the attendants being the Chinese
(the ChiComs as they used to call them) and to some extent Russia and
Iran.
You've generalised without reason and that's not acceptable. Also,
are *you* some sort of Bolshevik? Up the workers and all that? I
fucking detest communism and all it stands for...
If you're going to be cattle, at least pick a herd in the Western
world.
wrote:
very different to the world at large - it's a bit like a fucking virus
growing on agar in a petrie dish with the attendants being the Chinese
(the ChiComs as they used to call them) and to some extent Russia and
Iran.
You've generalised without reason and that's not acceptable. Also,
are *you* some sort of Bolshevik? Up the workers and all that? I
fucking detest communism and all it stands for...
If you're going to be cattle, at least pick a herd in the Western
world.
thang ornerythinchus
Nov 3, 2017, 8:05:43 PM11/3/17
to
2001 when America had its two front teeth knocked out.
And even then the response was fairly delicate almost surgical (except
for the criminal invasion of Iraq later). And the war in Afghanistan,
which started then, is STILL going on - *that* worked out ok, right?
I'd leave the mopping up of Daesh to the Russians (they're good at
that sort of stuff, not much by way of conscience with them) and the
locals - after all, the locals have a few grudges to iron out with
these cunts.
whisperoutloud
Nov 3, 2017, 8:22:12 PM11/3/17
to
How soon you forget. This is small biscuits compared to 11 September
> 2001 when America had its two front teeth knocked out.
We have forgot nothing. WE are going to kill every one of
> 2001 when America had its two front teeth knocked out.
these dirtbag shitfaces.
> And even then the response was fairly delicate almost surgical (except
> for the criminal invasion of Iraq later). And the war in Afghanistan,
> which started then, is STILL going on - *that* worked out ok, right?
> I'd leave the mopping up of Daesh to the Russians (they're good at
> that sort of stuff, not much by way of conscience with them) and the
> locals - after all, the locals have a few grudges to iron out with
> these cunts.
Maybe, just maybe these biscuit heads will wake up a little.
If not, oh well, have fun in hell sucking shit.
thang ornerythinchus
Nov 3, 2017, 9:16:40 PM11/3/17
to
the world apart from some tribes here and there and those of us who
don't follow the usual path :)
But you're correct. I can't find the above on his public FB blog so
pasting the article was appropriate. I assumed incorrectly - I
presumed.
BTW, this guy is smart and has many, many followers. But he's not
impartial. His colour is deep blue and he rides a donkey.
slider
Nov 4, 2017, 7:52:06 AM11/4/17
to
example! yet are there very close parallels that can be drawn between that
regime and any western one too...
e.g., the way both have 'enslaved' their own populaces and typically
sacrifice them to their cause ('there's plenty more where they came from'
etc...), it's just easier to see/recognise (and then point the finger at)
this deplorable state of affairs as expressed in an extreme example such
as NK (oh look how badly he treats his own people kinda thing, what a
monster! etc etc...) but is 'exactly' what all western regimes 'also' do
albeit buried/disguised under/by layers of laws & so-called rights to make
it all appear legit...
'up the workers' was sarcasm (a phrase we've all heard, one that implies
equality/solidarity...) followed by my own personal comment: 'yeah,
'right-up!' in ref. to jokes made the other day re: 'up yours!'
you say you detest communism, but are you sure you actually 'understand'
it??
i somehow (from your above statement) infer that you don't... which might
also explain your mistaken hatred of all-things russian...
community-ism (sharing!) ain't such a bad idea on paper really, equality
for all! no one better than anyone else! under such a regime doctors were,
for example, paid the same amount of wages as labourers or menial workers!
thus one became a doctor by dint of personal interest and inclination
alone and 'never' in consideration of any financial remuneration/return,
everyone also got somewhere to live! a system of equality! and yes,
totally corrupted by stalin + completely demonised by the west as a
competing ideology to capitalism!
certain intellectuals have, in theory, even gone as far as to claim
communism 'the' most advanced theory (of society) in the world! (e.g.,
"it's either communism or barbarism!" as being the only 2 real choices we
have! --plus can't remember who said that now...) an explanation perhaps
for why 'the' most intelligent among us (artists & writers for example)
all tend to go for communism rather than barbarism! and hounded (as in the
macarthy era) for doing so!
me? am nothing & no one politically, an outsider, merely an observer, i
cast my cold eye upon them all quite equally, favouring none... they're
ALL cunts afaic hah! gangsters! literally! 'robber barons' the lot of 'em!
imho they ALL need to step outside of themselves sometime just to 'see'
the fucking 'damage' they've ALL been causing!?
via their actions they are destroying the world!
and likely any minute now they'll destroy it completely!
unenlightened cunts!
haha ;)
thang ornerythinchus
Nov 5, 2017, 1:10:22 AM11/5/17
to
On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 11:52:04 -0000, slider <sli...@nanashram.com>
wrote:
I do. It takes from those who create and invest and take risks with
capital and their own labours and gives to those who do none of these
things. It nationalises production and quality of output suffers. It
doesn't permit private ownership of land and in most cases, property.
It breeds secret police to keep the merchant classes and
intelligentsia and those of the proletariat who aspire to these
positions in check. It permits only secularism. It strips faith and
belief and possibility and therefore hope from the humanity under its
thrall. It promotes tyranny and tyranny is its inevitable outcome,
always.
>
>i somehow (from your above statement) infer that you don't... which might
>also explain your mistaken hatred of all-things russian...
How soon you forget. My hatred is new and a result of the 298 people
murdered by Russian scum with their Buk missile which took down MH17.
Before that, I couldn't give a shit about Russia either way. Now, I
hope Trump does a first strike on the cunts and vaporises them all.
It's as simple as that.
>
>community-ism (sharing!) ain't such a bad idea on paper really, equality
>for all! no one better than anyone else! under such a regime doctors were,
>for example, paid the same amount of wages as labourers or menial workers!
>thus one became a doctor by dint of personal interest and inclination
>alone and 'never' in consideration of any financial remuneration/return,
>everyone also got somewhere to live! a system of equality! and yes,
>totally corrupted by stalin + completely demonised by the west as a
>competing ideology to capitalism!
That is completely fucked. Doctors, after seriously hard study for a
minimum of 5 years and then internships in hospitals under the most
arduous conditions - paid the same as common fucking labourers who
probably were to fucking lazy or stupid to try to become educated or
educate themselves? What.The.Fuck!!
Of course the financial reward has to be there. That's a no brainer.
Practically every major invention has been bankrolled by capitalists
and entrepreneurs. Apart from the military, there would be no
technological progress if such bankrolling were not available.
Capitalism is the only true way to live. Each person has the
opportunity to invest and take capital risk and either go broke or end
up wealthy and productive.
if something bad happens, you will survive. Squirrels hiding acorns
for the winter.
>
>via their actions they are destroying the world!
This world has been destroyed many many times and will be again and
again - blue green algae was the first, some 2.5 billion years ago,
the most massive extinction event in earth's history:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/extinctions_page.html
Then the Ordovician extinction, then the Devonian extinction, the
Permian extinction and of course the Jurassic Triassic extinction of
the dinosaurs. In all, 99.9% of all species of all life on this
planet are extinct - the extant lifeforms comprise less than one-tenth
of one percent of all life forms on earth. The rest are gone, baby,
gone.
>unenlightened cunts!
Who? The cyanobacteria? They were cunts alright, killing off all
those anaerobic bacteria. Bastards!
>
>haha ;)
wrote:
capital and their own labours and gives to those who do none of these
things. It nationalises production and quality of output suffers. It
doesn't permit private ownership of land and in most cases, property.
It breeds secret police to keep the merchant classes and
intelligentsia and those of the proletariat who aspire to these
positions in check. It permits only secularism. It strips faith and
belief and possibility and therefore hope from the humanity under its
thrall. It promotes tyranny and tyranny is its inevitable outcome,
always.
>
>i somehow (from your above statement) infer that you don't... which might
>also explain your mistaken hatred of all-things russian...
murdered by Russian scum with their Buk missile which took down MH17.
Before that, I couldn't give a shit about Russia either way. Now, I
hope Trump does a first strike on the cunts and vaporises them all.
It's as simple as that.
>
>community-ism (sharing!) ain't such a bad idea on paper really, equality
>for all! no one better than anyone else! under such a regime doctors were,
>for example, paid the same amount of wages as labourers or menial workers!
>thus one became a doctor by dint of personal interest and inclination
>alone and 'never' in consideration of any financial remuneration/return,
>everyone also got somewhere to live! a system of equality! and yes,
>totally corrupted by stalin + completely demonised by the west as a
>competing ideology to capitalism!
minimum of 5 years and then internships in hospitals under the most
arduous conditions - paid the same as common fucking labourers who
probably were to fucking lazy or stupid to try to become educated or
educate themselves? What.The.Fuck!!
Of course the financial reward has to be there. That's a no brainer.
>
>certain intellectuals have, in theory, even gone as far as to claim
>communism 'the' most advanced theory (of society) in the world! (e.g.,
>"it's either communism or barbarism!" as being the only 2 real choices we
>have! --plus can't remember who said that now...) an explanation perhaps
>for why 'the' most intelligent among us (artists & writers for example)
>all tend to go for communism rather than barbarism! and hounded (as in the
>macarthy era) for doing so!
Bullshit. If there were no capitalism, there would be no progress.
>certain intellectuals have, in theory, even gone as far as to claim
>communism 'the' most advanced theory (of society) in the world! (e.g.,
>"it's either communism or barbarism!" as being the only 2 real choices we
>have! --plus can't remember who said that now...) an explanation perhaps
>for why 'the' most intelligent among us (artists & writers for example)
>all tend to go for communism rather than barbarism! and hounded (as in the
>macarthy era) for doing so!
Practically every major invention has been bankrolled by capitalists
and entrepreneurs. Apart from the military, there would be no
technological progress if such bankrolling were not available.
Capitalism is the only true way to live. Each person has the
opportunity to invest and take capital risk and either go broke or end
up wealthy and productive.
>
>me? am nothing & no one politically, an outsider, merely an observer, i
>cast my cold eye upon them all quite equally, favouring none... they're
>ALL cunts afaic hah! gangsters! literally! 'robber barons' the lot of 'em!
>imho they ALL need to step outside of themselves sometime just to 'see'
>the fucking 'damage' they've ALL been causing!?
That's just human nature. Survival instinct. Make plenty of money so
>me? am nothing & no one politically, an outsider, merely an observer, i
>cast my cold eye upon them all quite equally, favouring none... they're
>ALL cunts afaic hah! gangsters! literally! 'robber barons' the lot of 'em!
>imho they ALL need to step outside of themselves sometime just to 'see'
>the fucking 'damage' they've ALL been causing!?
if something bad happens, you will survive. Squirrels hiding acorns
for the winter.
>
>via their actions they are destroying the world!
again - blue green algae was the first, some 2.5 billion years ago,
the most massive extinction event in earth's history:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/extinctions_page.html
Then the Ordovician extinction, then the Devonian extinction, the
Permian extinction and of course the Jurassic Triassic extinction of
the dinosaurs. In all, 99.9% of all species of all life on this
planet are extinct - the extant lifeforms comprise less than one-tenth
of one percent of all life forms on earth. The rest are gone, baby,
gone.
>
>and likely any minute now they'll destroy it completely!
Read the above...
>and likely any minute now they'll destroy it completely!
>unenlightened cunts!
Who? The cyanobacteria? They were cunts alright, killing off all
those anaerobic bacteria. Bastards!
>
>haha ;)
slider
Nov 5, 2017, 3:43:10 AM11/5/17
to
On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 06:10:17 -0000, thang ornerythinchus
### - (laughing...) a staunch 'defender of the faith' then huh? :)
a 'confirmed' capitalist! (or maybe better make that: 'ordained'?
hehehe...)
tennet No 1 of the faith: thou shalt not have/put any other gods before me!
>
>>
>> i somehow (from your above statement) infer that you don't... which
>> might
>> also explain your mistaken hatred of all-things russian...
>
> How soon you forget. My hatred is new and a result of the 298 people
> murdered by Russian scum with their Buk missile which took down MH17.
>
> Before that, I couldn't give a shit about Russia either way. Now, I
> hope Trump does a first strike on the cunts and vaporises them all.
>
> It's as simple as that.
### - you honestly mean to tell me that ALL that 'national' + 'universal
hatred' for 'all-things-russian' was literally created by you on the spur
of the moment related to a single event??
bs... :)
that would be like suddenly hating & despising ALL dogs, literally
overnight, just because one-time you got bitten by a... poodle??
riiiight...
nah... pull the other one sport! (grinz...)
>
>>
>> community-ism (sharing!) ain't such a bad idea on paper really, equality
>> for all! no one better than anyone else! under such a regime doctors
>> were,
>> for example, paid the same amount of wages as labourers or menial
>> workers!
>> thus one became a doctor by dint of personal interest and inclination
>> alone and 'never' in consideration of any financial remuneration/return,
>> everyone also got somewhere to live! a system of equality! and yes,
>> totally corrupted by stalin + completely demonised by the west as a
>> competing ideology to capitalism!
>
> That is completely fucked. Doctors, after seriously hard study for a
> minimum of 5 years and then internships in hospitals under the most
> arduous conditions - paid the same as common fucking labourers who
> probably were to fucking lazy or stupid to try to become educated or
> educate themselves? What.The.Fuck!!
### - (you do really make me laugh sometimes ya know hehehe...)
because it's NOT 'about-the-money' only peeps who were 'inclined' to
become doctors did so! people with avid personal interests in medicine or
biology or whatever! ditto scientists AND artists too!
here's a thought experiment for ya that makes my point ok?:
if 'money' had NOT been your prime motivation for doing what you now do;
what, out of your own personal private interest and inclinations alone,
would you have perhaps been/become instead; how might you have 'chosen' to
live + doing what? given the option would you have just done nothing? or
might you have perhaps instead chosen to become a pilot or a sea captain,
or perhaps an architect? what would you have chosen to do/be in life if
'money' hadn't had to be an express consideration in everything you
did/had to do?
>
> Of course the financial reward has to be there. That's a no brainer.
### - heh, in star-truck next generation they didn't need money any more,
did they!
or did they? ;)
>>
>> certain intellectuals have, in theory, even gone as far as to claim
>> communism 'the' most advanced theory (of society) in the world! (e.g.,
>> "it's either communism or barbarism!" as being the only 2 real choices
>> we
>> have! --plus can't remember who said that now...) an explanation perhaps
>> for why 'the' most intelligent among us (artists & writers for example)
>> all tend to go for communism rather than barbarism! and hounded (as in
>> the
>> macarthy era) for doing so!
>
> Bullshit. If there were no capitalism, there would be no progress.
> Practically every major invention has been bankrolled by capitalists
> and entrepreneurs. Apart from the military, there would be no
> technological progress if such bankrolling were not available.
### - yeah... there might not have been an ocean full of plastic either
eh? funny that!
that what they've been 'calling' progress appears to have been no less
that an inexorable march towards our own demise and the destruction of
everything else in the process!?
that, with not enough 'resources' to go round, the competition to
'maintain' continual growth has created bigger war after war in the mad
scramble to 'obtain' those very same dwindling resources!
and because of that; is ultimately actually no better than one of those
pyramid scams that 'never' works out because they CAN'T possibly EVER work
out!
> Capitalism is the only true way to live. Each person has the
> opportunity to invest and take capital risk and either go broke or end
> up wealthy and productive.
### - "1% of the population 'owns' everything!
another 19% do very well working for them
the other 80% don't do well at all..."
--noam chomsky
>>
>> me? am nothing & no one politically, an outsider, merely an observer, i
>> cast my cold eye upon them all quite equally, favouring none... they're
>> ALL cunts afaic hah! gangsters! literally! 'robber barons' the lot of
>> 'em!
>> imho they ALL need to step outside of themselves sometime just to 'see'
>> the fucking 'damage' they've ALL been causing!?
>
> That's just human nature. Survival instinct. Make plenty of money so
> if something bad happens, you will survive. Squirrels hiding acorns
> for the winter.
### - and monkeys scratching their arseholes too lol! :)
i thought 'they' thought they were all 'better' than animals, no?
(smile...)
just squirrels playing with their nuts!?
riiiiight... :)))
>
>>
>> via their actions they are destroying the world!
>
> This world has been destroyed many many times and will be again and
> again - blue green algae was the first, some 2.5 billion years ago,
> the most massive extinction event in earth's history:
>
> http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/extinctions_page.html
>
> Then the Ordovician extinction, then the Devonian extinction, the
> Permian extinction and of course the Jurassic Triassic extinction of
> the dinosaurs. In all, 99.9% of all species of all life on this
> planet are extinct - the extant lifeforms comprise less than one-tenth
> of one percent of all life forms on earth. The rest are gone, baby,
> gone.
>>
>> and likely any minute now they'll destroy it completely!
>
> Read the above...
>
>> unenlightened cunts!
>
> Who? The cyanobacteria? They were cunts alright, killing off all
> those anaerobic bacteria. Bastards!
>
>>
>> haha ;)
### - heh you're being evasive :)
else you're surely not actually suggesting that the pursuit of money
destroying the world, is ok?
so is murder perhaps ok too??
dog-eat-dog is fine with you?
the 'rule of fist' is... cool??
that's not a 'club' i'd ever wish to join thanks...
:)
a 'confirmed' capitalist! (or maybe better make that: 'ordained'?
hehehe...)
tennet No 1 of the faith: thou shalt not have/put any other gods before me!
>
>>
>> i somehow (from your above statement) infer that you don't... which
>> might
>> also explain your mistaken hatred of all-things russian...
>
> How soon you forget. My hatred is new and a result of the 298 people
> murdered by Russian scum with their Buk missile which took down MH17.
>
> Before that, I couldn't give a shit about Russia either way. Now, I
> hope Trump does a first strike on the cunts and vaporises them all.
>
> It's as simple as that.
hatred' for 'all-things-russian' was literally created by you on the spur
of the moment related to a single event??
bs... :)
that would be like suddenly hating & despising ALL dogs, literally
overnight, just because one-time you got bitten by a... poodle??
riiiight...
nah... pull the other one sport! (grinz...)
>
>>
>> community-ism (sharing!) ain't such a bad idea on paper really, equality
>> for all! no one better than anyone else! under such a regime doctors
>> were,
>> for example, paid the same amount of wages as labourers or menial
>> workers!
>> thus one became a doctor by dint of personal interest and inclination
>> alone and 'never' in consideration of any financial remuneration/return,
>> everyone also got somewhere to live! a system of equality! and yes,
>> totally corrupted by stalin + completely demonised by the west as a
>> competing ideology to capitalism!
>
> That is completely fucked. Doctors, after seriously hard study for a
> minimum of 5 years and then internships in hospitals under the most
> arduous conditions - paid the same as common fucking labourers who
> probably were to fucking lazy or stupid to try to become educated or
> educate themselves? What.The.Fuck!!
because it's NOT 'about-the-money' only peeps who were 'inclined' to
become doctors did so! people with avid personal interests in medicine or
biology or whatever! ditto scientists AND artists too!
here's a thought experiment for ya that makes my point ok?:
if 'money' had NOT been your prime motivation for doing what you now do;
what, out of your own personal private interest and inclinations alone,
would you have perhaps been/become instead; how might you have 'chosen' to
live + doing what? given the option would you have just done nothing? or
might you have perhaps instead chosen to become a pilot or a sea captain,
or perhaps an architect? what would you have chosen to do/be in life if
'money' hadn't had to be an express consideration in everything you
did/had to do?
>
> Of course the financial reward has to be there. That's a no brainer.
did they!
or did they? ;)
>>
>> certain intellectuals have, in theory, even gone as far as to claim
>> communism 'the' most advanced theory (of society) in the world! (e.g.,
>> "it's either communism or barbarism!" as being the only 2 real choices
>> we
>> have! --plus can't remember who said that now...) an explanation perhaps
>> for why 'the' most intelligent among us (artists & writers for example)
>> all tend to go for communism rather than barbarism! and hounded (as in
>> the
>> macarthy era) for doing so!
>
> Bullshit. If there were no capitalism, there would be no progress.
> Practically every major invention has been bankrolled by capitalists
> and entrepreneurs. Apart from the military, there would be no
> technological progress if such bankrolling were not available.
eh? funny that!
that what they've been 'calling' progress appears to have been no less
that an inexorable march towards our own demise and the destruction of
everything else in the process!?
that, with not enough 'resources' to go round, the competition to
'maintain' continual growth has created bigger war after war in the mad
scramble to 'obtain' those very same dwindling resources!
and because of that; is ultimately actually no better than one of those
pyramid scams that 'never' works out because they CAN'T possibly EVER work
out!
> Capitalism is the only true way to live. Each person has the
> opportunity to invest and take capital risk and either go broke or end
> up wealthy and productive.
another 19% do very well working for them
the other 80% don't do well at all..."
--noam chomsky
>>
>> me? am nothing & no one politically, an outsider, merely an observer, i
>> cast my cold eye upon them all quite equally, favouring none... they're
>> ALL cunts afaic hah! gangsters! literally! 'robber barons' the lot of
>> 'em!
>> imho they ALL need to step outside of themselves sometime just to 'see'
>> the fucking 'damage' they've ALL been causing!?
>
> That's just human nature. Survival instinct. Make plenty of money so
> if something bad happens, you will survive. Squirrels hiding acorns
> for the winter.
i thought 'they' thought they were all 'better' than animals, no?
(smile...)
just squirrels playing with their nuts!?
riiiiight... :)))
>
>>
>> via their actions they are destroying the world!
>
> This world has been destroyed many many times and will be again and
> again - blue green algae was the first, some 2.5 billion years ago,
> the most massive extinction event in earth's history:
>
> http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/extinctions_page.html
>
> Then the Ordovician extinction, then the Devonian extinction, the
> Permian extinction and of course the Jurassic Triassic extinction of
> the dinosaurs. In all, 99.9% of all species of all life on this
> planet are extinct - the extant lifeforms comprise less than one-tenth
> of one percent of all life forms on earth. The rest are gone, baby,
> gone.
>>
>> and likely any minute now they'll destroy it completely!
>
> Read the above...
>
>> unenlightened cunts!
>
> Who? The cyanobacteria? They were cunts alright, killing off all
> those anaerobic bacteria. Bastards!
>
>>
>> haha ;)
else you're surely not actually suggesting that the pursuit of money
destroying the world, is ok?
so is murder perhaps ok too??
dog-eat-dog is fine with you?
the 'rule of fist' is... cool??
that's not a 'club' i'd ever wish to join thanks...
:)
0 new messages