The Orange Clown An Unindicted Co Conspirator

[ThoughtCrimes]

Back on Mar 1, 1974, another Watergate grand jury indictment was passed down to Judge Sirica. Among those NAMED in the indictment were:

1. John N. Mitchell - Attorney General;
2. H. R. Haldeman - WH Chief of Staff;
3. John D. Ehrlichman - assistant to the President;
4. Charles W. Colson - special counsel to the President;
5. Robert C. Mardian - aide to Mr. Mitchell in the 1972 campaign;
6. Kenneth W. Parkinson - attorney for the Committee for the Re‐election of the President;
7. Gordon C. Strachan - aide to Mr. Haldeman;
A finally,
8. [from the indictment] "...and other persons to the grand jury known and unknown, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with each other” to commit several Federal offenses."

That would turn out to be the infamous "unindicted co conspirator" of Watergate, Richard M. Nixon.
~~ FEDERAL GRAND JUR Y INDICTS 7 NIXON AIDES ON CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY ON WATERGATE; HALDEMAN, EHRLICHMAN, MITCHELL ON LIST ~~

A striking parallel to the above arose yesterday with Cohen court appearance and plea. The following are highlighted excerpts from;
~~ Watergate Prosecutor Hits Trump: 'The President Is An Unindicted Co-Conspirator' | HuffPost ~~

"A former Watergate prosecutor said that Tuesday’s plea deal by Michael Cohen means President Donald Trump now has something in common with President Richard Nixon.

“There’s no question about it,” Nick Akerman said on MSNBC. “This makes the president of the United States an unindicted co-conspirator.”

Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, admitted in his plea deal that he illegally interfered in the 2016 presidential election “at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” presumably Trump.

That, Akerman said, makes Trump an “unindicted co-conspirator,” a term used by the Watergate grand jury to describe Nixon’s role in the scandal, which ultimately led to his resignation.

“This is the first time this has happened since Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate trial,” Akerman said. “This is a big deal.”"

But then how could Trump be the "unindicted co conspirator" regarding Cohen's plea?

"“The fact of the matter is, if you read this indictment, he’s doing it at the direction of Donald Trump,” he said [Ackerman]. “And if he’s doing it at the direction of Donald Trump, there’s a conspiracy. It’s an agreement, an agreement to commit campaign financing crimes. It’s a five-year felony. This is a serious matter.”"

That is backed up by Jonathan Turley in his comments on FOX NEWS, with this;

"“If the prosecutors accept what is in this indictment, then the president just became an unindicted co-conspirator,” he said. “If they believe that what’s in this indictment was true, and that he was directed to make this payment ... then the president just became an unindicted co-conspirator, and he could become an indicted co-conspirator depending on the timing and circumstances.”"

Meanwhile, in his inimitable manner of gifting a wooden horse for placation of the masses, Rudi Giuliani claimed, ""There is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the President in the government's charges against Mr. Cohen. It is clear that, as the prosecutor noted, Mr. Cohen's actions reflect a pattern of lies and dishonesty over a significant period of time.”"
~~ Twitter Users Crack Up At Rudy Giuliani's Reaction To Manafort, Cohen Verdicts | HuffPost ~~

What a lap dog! All that humiliating sycophancy wasted trying to keep that sinking ship of corruption afloat!

 

[Claudette]

What a load of horseshit. LOL

 

[MisterBeale]

So nice that the press is finally doing it's job. Revealing to America that businessmen are corrupt when it comes to buying favors and dealing with the law to get elected. Anyone surprised? I don't think so.

Does anyone really believe that anyone is clean? Only rabid partisans that say, "oh, but you have nothing on them, no judgements, etc."

What amazes me is that the establishment will call out corruption, for those they don't like, when it has always been there on all sides.

It really isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal when they don't like who is in office. The entire electorate knew how corrupt the establishment and the other party was, yet, they let them go, not even a slap on the wrist. The judiciary and the corporate media is just as corrupt.

And we are supposed to care?

Why?

 

[MisterBeale]

This was written by a Stanford professor, (a liberal) in 2014, before Trump ever declared, and published in Japan. (Annotated with 43 references.)

The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980)
The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980) (1963-1980) | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

". . . .The antagonism between CIA operatives and the White House did not begin with Carter. It was so acute right after the Bay of Pigs and the firing of CIA Director Dulles that Kennedy told one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”21 In 1972 Nixon fired Helms after the Watergate break-in because he believed Helms “was out to get him;” and he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.”22


Neither Kennedy nor Nixon finished their terms, let alone their intention to bring the CIA under control. But their successive firings of Dulles and Helms left a toxic resentment inside CIA, especially after Nixon’s CIA Director James Schlesinger then purged more that five hundred analysts and more than one thousand people in all from the clandestine service.23 CIA veteran Arabist Archibald Roosevelt, who was a significant player along with former CIA Director Bush in the October Surprise, believed that Nixon’s appointees as CIA Director – James Schlesinger and William Colby – “had both…betrayed their office by pandering to politicians.”24


CIA resentment and concern was not just directed against presidents. The CIA’s Operations Division was also determined to fight a number of limitations imposed on it in the mid-1970s by the responses of a Democratic Congress to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. As a result, even before Carter’s election, a number of the CIA’s allied intelligence services, in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Morocco, had allied in the so-called Safari Club to serve as an alternative source of funding and financing of covert operations.25 In this they used the resources and networks of the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). CIA assets like Adnan Khashoggi and Bruce Rappaport, assisted by officially retired CIA personnel like Miles Copeland and Jerry Townsend, were part of this global BCCI network. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, a key figure in the Safari Club, once admitted candidly that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome the efforts of Carter and Congress to rein in the CIA.26


But the efforts of former CIA officers to elect Reagan were only part of a larger effort to ensure the defeat of Carter in 1980. As we shall see, an even more important factor in Carter’s defeat was the prior manipulation of oil prices by the U.S. oil majors, to engineer an artificially elevated oil price increase.27


The plight of Jimmy Carter in 1979-80 epitomizes how weak a president can become when he loses the mandate of heaven from the American deep state. First he expressed his determination not to admit the deposed Shah of Iran into the United States, knowing very well that this might result in the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.28 But soon thereafter Carter was coerced by the Rockefellers and their man in the White House, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to do just that.29 (Carter, in caving in to Rockefeller’s demands, asked, “What are you guys going to recommend that we do when they take our embassy and hold our people hostage?”)30 In the remaining months of his presidency, his popularity was battered by the long waits at gas stations and convenience stores, generated by a largely artificial gas shortage.31 We can see Carter as a victim of the top-down power of the deep state, which would mean that Carter himself, like Kennedy and Nixon before him, was not on top.


Carter’s defeat by Reagan in 1980 ended two tumultuous decades in which one president (along with his brother) was assassinated, the next chose not to run for re-election, the next was forced to resign, and the two last, despite their incumbencies, failed to be re-elected. In every case, one way or another, tensions between the presidents and the deep state helped terminate the careers of those in the White House. . . ."

 

[TNHarley]

I have already that phrase from 10 different people. Its like you guys just line up to hear what you need to say.. Good grief.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

What a load of horseshit. LOL

Oh My...another knee jerk from a person unable to articulate what the fuck they think but will do their master's bidding and regurgitate inanities and insults when their minder's finger is placed in the ring on the string! Just an empty vessel without a mind of their own.

So nice that the press is finally doing it's job. Revealing to America that businessmen are corrupt when it comes to buying favors and dealing with the law to get elected. Anyone surprised? I don't think so.

Does anyone really believe that anyone is clean? Only rabid partisans that say, "oh, but you have nothing on them, no judgements, etc."

What amazes me is that the establishment will call out corruption, for those they don't like, when it has always been there on all sides.

It really isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal when they don't like who is in office. The entire electorate knew how corrupt the establishment and the other party was, yet, they let them go, not even a slap on the wrist. The judiciary and the corporate media is just as corrupt.

And we are supposed to care?

Why?

Care to respond to the particulars of the OP or is that just another call for all cynics to unite for a group vent?

This was written by a Stanford professor, (a liberal) in 2014, before Trump ever declared, and published in Japan. (Annotated with 43 references.)

The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980)
The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980) (1963-1980) | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

". . . .The antagonism between CIA operatives and the White House did not begin with Carter. It was so acute right after the Bay of Pigs and the firing of CIA Director Dulles that Kennedy told one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”21 In 1972 Nixon fired Helms after the Watergate break-in because he believed Helms “was out to get him;” and he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.”22


Neither Kennedy nor Nixon finished their terms, let alone their intention to bring the CIA under control. But their successive firings of Dulles and Helms left a toxic resentment inside CIA, especially after Nixon’s CIA Director James Schlesinger then purged more that five hundred analysts and more than one thousand people in all from the clandestine service.23 CIA veteran Arabist Archibald Roosevelt, who was a significant player along with former CIA Director Bush in the October Surprise, believed that Nixon’s appointees as CIA Director – James Schlesinger and William Colby – “had both…betrayed their office by pandering to politicians.”24


CIA resentment and concern was not just directed against presidents. The CIA’s Operations Division was also determined to fight a number of limitations imposed on it in the mid-1970s by the responses of a Democratic Congress to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. As a result, even before Carter’s election, a number of the CIA’s allied intelligence services, in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Morocco, had allied in the so-called Safari Club to serve as an alternative source of funding and financing of covert operations.25 In this they used the resources and networks of the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). CIA assets like Adnan Khashoggi and Bruce Rappaport, assisted by officially retired CIA personnel like Miles Copeland and Jerry Townsend, were part of this global BCCI network. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, a key figure in the Safari Club, once admitted candidly that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome the efforts of Carter and Congress to rein in the CIA.26


But the efforts of former CIA officers to elect Reagan were only part of a larger effort to ensure the defeat of Carter in 1980. As we shall see, an even more important factor in Carter’s defeat was the prior manipulation of oil prices by the U.S. oil majors, to engineer an artificially elevated oil price increase.27


The plight of Jimmy Carter in 1979-80 epitomizes how weak a president can become when he loses the mandate of heaven from the American deep state. First he expressed his determination not to admit the deposed Shah of Iran into the United States, knowing very well that this might result in the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.28 But soon thereafter Carter was coerced by the Rockefellers and their man in the White House, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to do just that.29 (Carter, in caving in to Rockefeller’s demands, asked, “What are you guys going to recommend that we do when they take our embassy and hold our people hostage?”)30 In the remaining months of his presidency, his popularity was battered by the long waits at gas stations and convenience stores, generated by a largely artificial gas shortage.31 We can see Carter as a victim of the top-down power of the deep state, which would mean that Carter himself, like Kennedy and Nixon before him, was not on top.


Carter’s defeat by Reagan in 1980 ended two tumultuous decades in which one president (along with his brother) was assassinated, the next chose not to run for re-election, the next was forced to resign, and the two last, despite their incumbencies, failed to be re-elected. In every case, one way or another, tensions between the presidents and the deep state helped terminate the careers of those in the White House. . . ."

This certainly belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum and certainly not in Politics.

BTW, how did Jade Helm 2018 go fer ya?

I have already that phrase from 10 different people. Its like you guys just line up to hear what you need to say.. Good grief.

Care to put that in English and apply it to the OP in it's proper context so it conveys some links to what was written starting this thread?

 

[Claudette]

What a load of horseshit. LOL

Oh My...another knee jerk from a person unable to articulate what the fuck they think but will do their master's bidding and regurgitate inanities and insults when their minder's finger is placed in the ring on the string! Just an empty vessel without a mind of their own.

So nice that the press is finally doing it's job. Revealing to America that businessmen are corrupt when it comes to buying favors and dealing with the law to get elected. Anyone surprised? I don't think so.

Does anyone really believe that anyone is clean? Only rabid partisans that say, "oh, but you have nothing on them, no judgements, etc."

What amazes me is that the establishment will call out corruption, for those they don't like, when it has always been there on all sides.

It really isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal when they don't like who is in office. The entire electorate knew how corrupt the establishment and the other party was, yet, they let them go, not even a slap on the wrist. The judiciary and the corporate media is just as corrupt.

And we are supposed to care?

Why?

Care to respond to the particulars of the OP or is that just another call for all cynics to unite for a group vent?

This was written by a Stanford professor, (a liberal) in 2014, before Trump ever declared, and published in Japan. (Annotated with 43 references.)

The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980)
The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980) (1963-1980) | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

". . . .The antagonism between CIA operatives and the White House did not begin with Carter. It was so acute right after the Bay of Pigs and the firing of CIA Director Dulles that Kennedy told one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”21 In 1972 Nixon fired Helms after the Watergate break-in because he believed Helms “was out to get him;” and he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.”22


Neither Kennedy nor Nixon finished their terms, let alone their intention to bring the CIA under control. But their successive firings of Dulles and Helms left a toxic resentment inside CIA, especially after Nixon’s CIA Director James Schlesinger then purged more that five hundred analysts and more than one thousand people in all from the clandestine service.23 CIA veteran Arabist Archibald Roosevelt, who was a significant player along with former CIA Director Bush in the October Surprise, believed that Nixon’s appointees as CIA Director – James Schlesinger and William Colby – “had both…betrayed their office by pandering to politicians.”24


CIA resentment and concern was not just directed against presidents. The CIA’s Operations Division was also determined to fight a number of limitations imposed on it in the mid-1970s by the responses of a Democratic Congress to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. As a result, even before Carter’s election, a number of the CIA’s allied intelligence services, in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Morocco, had allied in the so-called Safari Club to serve as an alternative source of funding and financing of covert operations.25 In this they used the resources and networks of the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). CIA assets like Adnan Khashoggi and Bruce Rappaport, assisted by officially retired CIA personnel like Miles Copeland and Jerry Townsend, were part of this global BCCI network. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, a key figure in the Safari Club, once admitted candidly that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome the efforts of Carter and Congress to rein in the CIA.26


But the efforts of former CIA officers to elect Reagan were only part of a larger effort to ensure the defeat of Carter in 1980. As we shall see, an even more important factor in Carter’s defeat was the prior manipulation of oil prices by the U.S. oil majors, to engineer an artificially elevated oil price increase.27


The plight of Jimmy Carter in 1979-80 epitomizes how weak a president can become when he loses the mandate of heaven from the American deep state. First he expressed his determination not to admit the deposed Shah of Iran into the United States, knowing very well that this might result in the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.28 But soon thereafter Carter was coerced by the Rockefellers and their man in the White House, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to do just that.29 (Carter, in caving in to Rockefeller’s demands, asked, “What are you guys going to recommend that we do when they take our embassy and hold our people hostage?”)30 In the remaining months of his presidency, his popularity was battered by the long waits at gas stations and convenience stores, generated by a largely artificial gas shortage.31 We can see Carter as a victim of the top-down power of the deep state, which would mean that Carter himself, like Kennedy and Nixon before him, was not on top.


Carter’s defeat by Reagan in 1980 ended two tumultuous decades in which one president (along with his brother) was assassinated, the next chose not to run for re-election, the next was forced to resign, and the two last, despite their incumbencies, failed to be re-elected. In every case, one way or another, tensions between the presidents and the deep state helped terminate the careers of those in the White House. . . ."

This certainly belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum and certainly not in Politics.

BTW, how did Jade Helm 2018 go fer ya?

LMAO

 

[Norman]

Last time I read a rambling like this it was from a flat earth theorist.

It's quite funny as long as you keep yourself from thinking about the sad part - there is a person that is dumb enough to believe it.

 

[MisterBeale]

So nice that the press is finally doing it's job. Revealing to America that businessmen are corrupt when it comes to buying favors and dealing with the law to get elected. Anyone surprised? I don't think so.

Does anyone really believe that anyone is clean? Only rabid partisans that say, "oh, but you have nothing on them, no judgements, etc."

What amazes me is that the establishment will call out corruption, for those they don't like, when it has always been there on all sides.

It really isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal when they don't like who is in office. The entire electorate knew how corrupt the establishment and the other party was, yet, they let them go, not even a slap on the wrist. The judiciary and the corporate media is just as corrupt.

And we are supposed to care?

Why?

Care to respond to the particulars of the OP or is that just another call for all cynics to unite for a group vent?

This was written by a Stanford professor, (a liberal) in 2014, before Trump ever declared, and published in Japan. (Annotated with 43 references.)

The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980)
The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980) (1963-1980) | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

". . . .The antagonism between CIA operatives and the White House did not begin with Carter. It was so acute right after the Bay of Pigs and the firing of CIA Director Dulles that Kennedy told one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”21 In 1972 Nixon fired Helms after the Watergate break-in because he believed Helms “was out to get him;” and he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.”22


Neither Kennedy nor Nixon finished their terms, let alone their intention to bring the CIA under control. But their successive firings of Dulles and Helms left a toxic resentment inside CIA, especially after Nixon’s CIA Director James Schlesinger then purged more that five hundred analysts and more than one thousand people in all from the clandestine service.23 CIA veteran Arabist Archibald Roosevelt, who was a significant player along with former CIA Director Bush in the October Surprise, believed that Nixon’s appointees as CIA Director – James Schlesinger and William Colby – “had both…betrayed their office by pandering to politicians.”24


CIA resentment and concern was not just directed against presidents. The CIA’s Operations Division was also determined to fight a number of limitations imposed on it in the mid-1970s by the responses of a Democratic Congress to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. As a result, even before Carter’s election, a number of the CIA’s allied intelligence services, in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Morocco, had allied in the so-called Safari Club to serve as an alternative source of funding and financing of covert operations.25 In this they used the resources and networks of the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). CIA assets like Adnan Khashoggi and Bruce Rappaport, assisted by officially retired CIA personnel like Miles Copeland and Jerry Townsend, were part of this global BCCI network. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, a key figure in the Safari Club, once admitted candidly that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome the efforts of Carter and Congress to rein in the CIA.26


But the efforts of former CIA officers to elect Reagan were only part of a larger effort to ensure the defeat of Carter in 1980. As we shall see, an even more important factor in Carter’s defeat was the prior manipulation of oil prices by the U.S. oil majors, to engineer an artificially elevated oil price increase.27


The plight of Jimmy Carter in 1979-80 epitomizes how weak a president can become when he loses the mandate of heaven from the American deep state. First he expressed his determination not to admit the deposed Shah of Iran into the United States, knowing very well that this might result in the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.28 But soon thereafter Carter was coerced by the Rockefellers and their man in the White House, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to do just that.29 (Carter, in caving in to Rockefeller’s demands, asked, “What are you guys going to recommend that we do when they take our embassy and hold our people hostage?”)30 In the remaining months of his presidency, his popularity was battered by the long waits at gas stations and convenience stores, generated by a largely artificial gas shortage.31 We can see Carter as a victim of the top-down power of the deep state, which would mean that Carter himself, like Kennedy and Nixon before him, was not on top.


Carter’s defeat by Reagan in 1980 ended two tumultuous decades in which one president (along with his brother) was assassinated, the next chose not to run for re-election, the next was forced to resign, and the two last, despite their incumbencies, failed to be re-elected. In every case, one way or another, tensions between the presidents and the deep state helped terminate the careers of those in the White House. . . ."

This certainly belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum and certainly not in Politics.

BTW, how did Jade Helm 2018 go fer ya?

If you think a UofC at Berkley professor is less qualified to analyze what is going on than some drive by?

You are a lunatic and easily conditioned to cognitive bias.

Your guy doesn't even have a Wiki page. He is a nothing. I guess that is why you don't know shit about politics, huh? You read B.S. from fellow partisans and live in a bubble? Eh?

Edward Mazza
https://www.linkedin.com/in/edward-mazza-295a2210


Peter Dale Scott
Peter Dale Scott - Wikipedia

Pretty obvious my guy knows what he is talking about, and YOUR guy belongs in the conspiracy sub-forum. You're welcome for the education.

How You Can Be Absolutely Certain That Mainstream Media Lies About Everything


Your OP doesn't deserve a point by point response, because it is crap. Sorry you don't like reality, but it is what it is man.

 

[Skylar]

So nice that the press is finally doing it's job. Revealing to America that businessmen are corrupt when it comes to buying favors and dealing with the law to get elected. Anyone surprised? I don't think so.

Does anyone really believe that anyone is clean? Only rabid partisans that say, "oh, but you have nothing on them, no judgements, etc."

What amazes me is that the establishment will call out corruption, for those they don't like, when it has always been there on all sides.

It really isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal when they don't like who is in office. The entire electorate knew how corrupt the establishment and the other party was, yet, they let them go, not even a slap on the wrist. The judiciary and the corporate media is just as corrupt.

And we are supposed to care?

Why?

Laughing....so much for 'draining the swamp'. Now its 'everyone is filthy'!

Apparently moral equivalency is now a conservative value.

 

[MisterBeale]

So nice that the press is finally doing it's job. Revealing to America that businessmen are corrupt when it comes to buying favors and dealing with the law to get elected. Anyone surprised? I don't think so.

Does anyone really believe that anyone is clean? Only rabid partisans that say, "oh, but you have nothing on them, no judgements, etc."

What amazes me is that the establishment will call out corruption, for those they don't like, when it has always been there on all sides.

It really isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal when they don't like who is in office. The entire electorate knew how corrupt the establishment and the other party was, yet, they let them go, not even a slap on the wrist. The judiciary and the corporate media is just as corrupt.

And we are supposed to care?

Why?

Laughing....so much for 'draining the swamp'. Now its 'everyone is filthy'!

Apparently moral equivalency is now a conservative value.

Couldn't agree more. That is it in a nut shell.

The conservatives should just drop the "draining the swamp" bullshit. They need to thank the establishment press for finally doing their job.

OTH, the progressives should start being honest. Until then, this shit will continue.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I have already that phrase from 10 different people. Its like you guys just line up to hear what you need to say.. Good grief.

So nice that the press is finally doing it's job. Revealing to America that businessmen are corrupt when it comes to buying favors and dealing with the law to get elected. Anyone surprised? I don't think so.

Does anyone really believe that anyone is clean? Only rabid partisans that say, "oh, but you have nothing on them, no judgements, etc."

What amazes me is that the establishment will call out corruption, for those they don't like, when it has always been there on all sides.

It really isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal when they don't like who is in office. The entire electorate knew how corrupt the establishment and the other party was, yet, they let them go, not even a slap on the wrist. The judiciary and the corporate media is just as corrupt.

And we are supposed to care?

Why?

Care to respond to the particulars of the OP or is that just another call for all cynics to unite for a group vent?

This was written by a Stanford professor, (a liberal) in 2014, before Trump ever declared, and published in Japan. (Annotated with 43 references.)

The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980)
The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980) (1963-1980) | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

". . . .The antagonism between CIA operatives and the White House did not begin with Carter. It was so acute right after the Bay of Pigs and the firing of CIA Director Dulles that Kennedy told one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”21 In 1972 Nixon fired Helms after the Watergate break-in because he believed Helms “was out to get him;” and he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.”22


Neither Kennedy nor Nixon finished their terms, let alone their intention to bring the CIA under control. But their successive firings of Dulles and Helms left a toxic resentment inside CIA, especially after Nixon’s CIA Director James Schlesinger then purged more that five hundred analysts and more than one thousand people in all from the clandestine service.23 CIA veteran Arabist Archibald Roosevelt, who was a significant player along with former CIA Director Bush in the October Surprise, believed that Nixon’s appointees as CIA Director – James Schlesinger and William Colby – “had both…betrayed their office by pandering to politicians.”24


CIA resentment and concern was not just directed against presidents. The CIA’s Operations Division was also determined to fight a number of limitations imposed on it in the mid-1970s by the responses of a Democratic Congress to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. As a result, even before Carter’s election, a number of the CIA’s allied intelligence services, in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Morocco, had allied in the so-called Safari Club to serve as an alternative source of funding and financing of covert operations.25 In this they used the resources and networks of the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). CIA assets like Adnan Khashoggi and Bruce Rappaport, assisted by officially retired CIA personnel like Miles Copeland and Jerry Townsend, were part of this global BCCI network. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, a key figure in the Safari Club, once admitted candidly that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome the efforts of Carter and Congress to rein in the CIA.26


But the efforts of former CIA officers to elect Reagan were only part of a larger effort to ensure the defeat of Carter in 1980. As we shall see, an even more important factor in Carter’s defeat was the prior manipulation of oil prices by the U.S. oil majors, to engineer an artificially elevated oil price increase.27


The plight of Jimmy Carter in 1979-80 epitomizes how weak a president can become when he loses the mandate of heaven from the American deep state. First he expressed his determination not to admit the deposed Shah of Iran into the United States, knowing very well that this might result in the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.28 But soon thereafter Carter was coerced by the Rockefellers and their man in the White House, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to do just that.29 (Carter, in caving in to Rockefeller’s demands, asked, “What are you guys going to recommend that we do when they take our embassy and hold our people hostage?”)30 In the remaining months of his presidency, his popularity was battered by the long waits at gas stations and convenience stores, generated by a largely artificial gas shortage.31 We can see Carter as a victim of the top-down power of the deep state, which would mean that Carter himself, like Kennedy and Nixon before him, was not on top.


Carter’s defeat by Reagan in 1980 ended two tumultuous decades in which one president (along with his brother) was assassinated, the next chose not to run for re-election, the next was forced to resign, and the two last, despite their incumbencies, failed to be re-elected. In every case, one way or another, tensions between the presidents and the deep state helped terminate the careers of those in the White House. . . ."

This certainly belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum and certainly not in Politics.

BTW, how did Jade Helm 2018 go fer ya?

If you think a UofC at Berkley professor is less qualified to analyze what is going on than some drive by?

You are a lunatic and easily conditioned to cognitive bias.

Your guy doesn't even have a Wiki page. He is a nothing. I guess that is why you don't know shit about politics, huh? You read B.S. from fellow partisans and live in a bubble? Eh?

Edward Mazza
https://www.linkedin.com/in/edward-mazza-295a2210


Peter Dale Scott
Peter Dale Scott - Wikipedia

Pretty obvious my guy knows what he is talking about, and YOUR guy belongs in the conspiracy sub-forum. You're welcome for the education.

How You Can Be Absolutely Certain That Mainstream Media Lies About Everything


Your OP doesn't deserve a point by point response, because it is crap. Sorry you don't like reality, but it is what it is man.

More off the wall demagoguery to avoid and dodge actually discussing the topic of the OP you find so crushing to your fragile ego. I learned 44 years ago this month not to invest too much of my confidence, loyalty and trust in a political figure back when I was an impressionable 'Young Republican' of the GOP.

Sobeit you fucking coward! Run Forest, run!

When Trump goes down, maybe I'll PM your Highness and try to ascertain the degree of your disappointment in your failed investment and if you've learned a damned thing from it!

 

[MisterBeale]

I have already that phrase from 10 different people. Its like you guys just line up to hear what you need to say.. Good grief.

So nice that the press is finally doing it's job. Revealing to America that businessmen are corrupt when it comes to buying favors and dealing with the law to get elected. Anyone surprised? I don't think so.

Does anyone really believe that anyone is clean? Only rabid partisans that say, "oh, but you have nothing on them, no judgements, etc."

What amazes me is that the establishment will call out corruption, for those they don't like, when it has always been there on all sides.

It really isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal when they don't like who is in office. The entire electorate knew how corrupt the establishment and the other party was, yet, they let them go, not even a slap on the wrist. The judiciary and the corporate media is just as corrupt.

And we are supposed to care?

Why?

Care to respond to the particulars of the OP or is that just another call for all cynics to unite for a group vent?

This was written by a Stanford professor, (a liberal) in 2014, before Trump ever declared, and published in Japan. (Annotated with 43 references.)

The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980)
The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980) (1963-1980) | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

". . . .The antagonism between CIA operatives and the White House did not begin with Carter. It was so acute right after the Bay of Pigs and the firing of CIA Director Dulles that Kennedy told one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”21 In 1972 Nixon fired Helms after the Watergate break-in because he believed Helms “was out to get him;” and he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.”22


Neither Kennedy nor Nixon finished their terms, let alone their intention to bring the CIA under control. But their successive firings of Dulles and Helms left a toxic resentment inside CIA, especially after Nixon’s CIA Director James Schlesinger then purged more that five hundred analysts and more than one thousand people in all from the clandestine service.23 CIA veteran Arabist Archibald Roosevelt, who was a significant player along with former CIA Director Bush in the October Surprise, believed that Nixon’s appointees as CIA Director – James Schlesinger and William Colby – “had both…betrayed their office by pandering to politicians.”24


CIA resentment and concern was not just directed against presidents. The CIA’s Operations Division was also determined to fight a number of limitations imposed on it in the mid-1970s by the responses of a Democratic Congress to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. As a result, even before Carter’s election, a number of the CIA’s allied intelligence services, in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Morocco, had allied in the so-called Safari Club to serve as an alternative source of funding and financing of covert operations.25 In this they used the resources and networks of the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). CIA assets like Adnan Khashoggi and Bruce Rappaport, assisted by officially retired CIA personnel like Miles Copeland and Jerry Townsend, were part of this global BCCI network. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, a key figure in the Safari Club, once admitted candidly that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome the efforts of Carter and Congress to rein in the CIA.26


But the efforts of former CIA officers to elect Reagan were only part of a larger effort to ensure the defeat of Carter in 1980. As we shall see, an even more important factor in Carter’s defeat was the prior manipulation of oil prices by the U.S. oil majors, to engineer an artificially elevated oil price increase.27


The plight of Jimmy Carter in 1979-80 epitomizes how weak a president can become when he loses the mandate of heaven from the American deep state. First he expressed his determination not to admit the deposed Shah of Iran into the United States, knowing very well that this might result in the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.28 But soon thereafter Carter was coerced by the Rockefellers and their man in the White House, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to do just that.29 (Carter, in caving in to Rockefeller’s demands, asked, “What are you guys going to recommend that we do when they take our embassy and hold our people hostage?”)30 In the remaining months of his presidency, his popularity was battered by the long waits at gas stations and convenience stores, generated by a largely artificial gas shortage.31 We can see Carter as a victim of the top-down power of the deep state, which would mean that Carter himself, like Kennedy and Nixon before him, was not on top.


Carter’s defeat by Reagan in 1980 ended two tumultuous decades in which one president (along with his brother) was assassinated, the next chose not to run for re-election, the next was forced to resign, and the two last, despite their incumbencies, failed to be re-elected. In every case, one way or another, tensions between the presidents and the deep state helped terminate the careers of those in the White House. . . ."

This certainly belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum and certainly not in Politics.

BTW, how did Jade Helm 2018 go fer ya?

If you think a UofC at Berkley professor is less qualified to analyze what is going on than some drive by?

You are a lunatic and easily conditioned to cognitive bias.

Your guy doesn't even have a Wiki page. He is a nothing. I guess that is why you don't know shit about politics, huh? You read B.S. from fellow partisans and live in a bubble? Eh?

Edward Mazza
https://www.linkedin.com/in/edward-mazza-295a2210


Peter Dale Scott
Peter Dale Scott - Wikipedia

Pretty obvious my guy knows what he is talking about, and YOUR guy belongs in the conspiracy sub-forum. You're welcome for the education.

How You Can Be Absolutely Certain That Mainstream Media Lies About Everything


Your OP doesn't deserve a point by point response, because it is crap. Sorry you don't like reality, but it is what it is man.

More off the wall demagoguery to avoid and dodge actually discussing the topic of the OP you find so crushing to your fragile ego. I learned 44 years ago this month not to invest too much of my confidence, loyalty and trust in a political figure back when I was an impressionable 'Young Republican' of the GOP.

Sobeit you fucking coward! Run Forest, run!

When Trump goes down, maybe I'll PM your Highness and try to ascertain the degree of your disappointment in your failed investment and if you've learned a damned thing from it!

If Trump goes down do you think I will care?

What are you going to do when the economy craters again? It won't matter who is in office you know. It is coming.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If Trump goes down do you think I will care?

Well you sure have done a good damn job of trying to derail any notion that the Clown-in-Chief may have any problems as a result of the items I outlined in the OP. You sure as Hell did not respond to a single point! So how is a reasonable person suppose to interpret those responses of alleged indifference when you appear to be defending any probability of culpability in the Cohen matter arising yesterday??

What are you going to do when the economy craters again? It won't matter who is in office you know. It is coming.

Well Hell yes the economy is going to tank soon. I'm on record on this site that no later than Q3-Q4 2019 it will have taken a dump in the middle of Wall St; it's been a cyclic animal since WWII. But again, what the Hell does that have to do with the topic of the OP you single minded, tunnel vision FUCK????

 

[MisterBeale]

If Trump goes down do you think I will care?

Well you sure have done a good damn job of trying to derail any notion that the Clown-in-Chief may have any problems as a result of the items I outlined in the OP. You sure as Hell did not respond to a single point! So how is a reasonable person suppose to interpret those responses of alleged indifference when you appear to be defending any probability of culpability in the Cohen matter arising yesterday??

What are you going to do when the economy craters again? It won't matter who is in office you know. It is coming.

Well Hell yes the economy is going to tank soon. I'm on record on this site that no later than Q3-Q4 2019 it will have taken a dump in the middle of Wall St; it's been a cyclic animal since WWII. But again, what the Hell does that have to do with the topic of the OP you single minded, tunnel vision FUCK????

I did respond, you just didn't like the response.

The response was, ALL politicians are corrupt and have committed violations of law.

The establishment only sees fit to prosecute and take down those who are a threat to the Anglo-American "Deep State" agenda.

You just don't like the answer. You ridicule the evidence, which shows they have done it to both Democrats and Republicans. Hence, we have nothing else to talk about.

 

[OKTexas]

Back on Mar 1, 1974, another Watergate grand jury indictment was passed down to Judge Sirica. Among those NAMED in the indictment were:

1. John N. Mitchell - Attorney General;
2. H. R. Haldeman - WH Chief of Staff;
3. John D. Ehrlichman - assistant to the President;
4. Charles W. Colson - special counsel to the President;
5. Robert C. Mardian - aide to Mr. Mitchell in the 1972 campaign;
6. Kenneth W. Parkinson - attorney for the Committee for the Re‐election of the President;
7. Gordon C. Strachan - aide to Mr. Haldeman;
A finally,
8. [from the indictment] "...and other persons to the grand jury known and unknown, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with each other” to commit several Federal offenses."

That would turn out to be the infamous "unindicted co conspirator" of Watergate, Richard M. Nixon.
~~ FEDERAL GRAND JUR Y INDICTS 7 NIXON AIDES ON CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY ON WATERGATE; HALDEMAN, EHRLICHMAN, MITCHELL ON LIST ~~

A striking parallel to the above arose yesterday with Cohen court appearance and plea. The following are highlighted excerpts from;
~~ Watergate Prosecutor Hits Trump: 'The President Is An Unindicted Co-Conspirator' | HuffPost ~~

"A former Watergate prosecutor said that Tuesday’s plea deal by Michael Cohen means President Donald Trump now has something in common with President Richard Nixon.

“There’s no question about it,” Nick Akerman said on MSNBC. “This makes the president of the United States an unindicted co-conspirator.”

Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, admitted in his plea deal that he illegally interfered in the 2016 presidential election “at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” presumably Trump.

That, Akerman said, makes Trump an “unindicted co-conspirator,” a term used by the Watergate grand jury to describe Nixon’s role in the scandal, which ultimately led to his resignation.

“This is the first time this has happened since Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate trial,” Akerman said. “This is a big deal.”"

But then how could Trump be the "unindicted co conspirator" regarding Cohen's plea?

"“The fact of the matter is, if you read this indictment, he’s doing it at the direction of Donald Trump,” he said [Ackerman]. “And if he’s doing it at the direction of Donald Trump, there’s a conspiracy. It’s an agreement, an agreement to commit campaign financing crimes. It’s a five-year felony. This is a serious matter.”"

That is backed up by Jonathan Turley in his comments on FOX NEWS, with this;

"“If the prosecutors accept what is in this indictment, then the president just became an unindicted co-conspirator,” he said. “If they believe that what’s in this indictment was true, and that he was directed to make this payment ... then the president just became an unindicted co-conspirator, and he could become an indicted co-conspirator depending on the timing and circumstances.”"

Meanwhile, in his inimitable manner of gifting a wooden horse for placation of the masses, Rudi Giuliani claimed, ""There is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the President in the government's charges against Mr. Cohen. It is clear that, as the prosecutor noted, Mr. Cohen's actions reflect a pattern of lies and dishonesty over a significant period of time.”"
~~ Twitter Users Crack Up At Rudy Giuliani's Reaction To Manafort, Cohen Verdicts | HuffPost ~~

What a lap dog! All that humiliating sycophancy wasted trying to keep that sinking ship of corruption afloat!

Could you please post the grand jury indictments on Cohen?

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I did respond, you just didn't like the response.

No, you didn't respond to the OP and that has been the point all along; you were just trying to derail the thread, you fraud! No piss off...dismissed!

Could you please post the grand jury indictments on Cohen?

You know as well as I that there was no grand jury indictment for Cohen. He plead guilty and it was accepted by the Court yesterday and is part of the official record NOW.

It's clear to me that you are trying to establish a straw man around a false equivalency. Go ahead and waste your time and kick the shit out of that vacuous argument you're trying to establish, fool! So transparent, Tex, so I ain't playin' and wasting my time with such a poor looser!

 

[MisterBeale]

I did respond, you just didn't like the response.

No, you didn't respond to the OP and that has been the point all along; you were just trying to derail the thread, you fraud! No piss off...dismissed!

Could you please post the grand jury indictments on Cohen?

You know as well as I that there was no grand jury indictment for Cohen. He plead guilty and it was accepted by the Court yesterday and is part of the official record NOW.

It's clear to me that you are trying to establish a straw man around a false equivalency. Go ahead and waste your time and kick the shit out of that vacuous argument you're trying to establish, fool! So transparent, Tex, so I ain't playin' and wasting my time with such a poor looser!

I'm trying to tell you, that YOU are guilty of a false equivalency.

The Deep State and CIA purposely framed Nixon. He was only guilty of a cover-up, NOT the break-in. He was doing things the FBI and CIA did not like, so they framed him.

You just don't like those facts. That is the same situation we have here. You just don't like to hear the truth. Your OP is complete and utter shit, there is nothing to respond to.

Watergate Revelations: The Coup Against Nixon, Part 2 of 3
Watergate Revelations: The Coup Against Nixon, Part 2 of 3 - WhoWhatWhy
CHAPTER 10

"Downing Nixon, Part I: The Setup


Who Will Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest?
—ascribed to Henry II


On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance
equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National
Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW, in Washington,
D.C., the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as
having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.


Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into
one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon
forever, and drive him out of the White House.


Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the
Watergate burglary—or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people
believe Nixon got what he deserved.


But like other epic events, Watergate turns out to be an entirely different
story than the one we thought we knew.


Hanky-Panky, Cuban-Style


Almost no one has better expressed reasons to doubt Nixon’s involvement
than Nixon himself. In his memoirs, Nixon described how he learned about
the burglary while vacationing in Florida, from the morning newspaper. He
recalled his reaction at the time:


It sounded preposterous. Cubans in surgical gloves bugging the
DNC! I dismissed it as some sort of prank . . . The whole thing
made so little sense. Why, I wondered. Why then? Why in such a
blundering way . . . Anyone who knew anything about politics
would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless
place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign. The
whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked
like some kind of a setup.


Nixon was actually suggesting not just a setup, but one intended to harm
him.


Perhaps because anything he might say would seem transparently self-
serving, this claim received little attention and has been largely forgotten.


Notwithstanding Nixon’s initial reaction to the news of the break-in,
less than a week later he suddenly learned more—and this gave him much
to ponder.


On June 23, Nixon’s chief of staff, H. R. “Bob” Haldeman, came into the
Oval Office to give the president an update on a variety of topics, including
the investigation of the break-in. Haldeman had just been briefed by John
Dean, who had gotten his information from FBI investigators.


HALDEMAN: . . . The FBI agents who are working the case, at this
point, feel that’s what it is. This is CIA….


Nixon’s response would show that he had already realized this:


NIXON: Of course, this is a, this is a [E. Howard] Hunt [operation,
and exposure of it] will uncover a lot of things. You open that
scab there’s a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it
would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further.
This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that
we have nothing to do with ourselves… This will open the
whole Bay of Pigs thing…"

 

[OKTexas]

I did respond, you just didn't like the response.

No, you didn't respond to the OP and that has been the point all along; you were just trying to derail the thread, you fraud! No piss off...dismissed!

Could you please post the grand jury indictments on Cohen?

You know as well as I that there was no grand jury indictment for Cohen. He plead guilty and it was accepted by the Court yesterday and is part of the official record NOW.

It's clear to me that you are trying to establish a straw man around a false equivalency. Go ahead and waste your time and kick the shit out of that vacuous argument you're trying to establish, fool! So transparent, Tex, so I ain't playin' and wasting my time with such a poor looser!

Cohen presumably confessed to a negotiated list of charges, and the evidence supporting the charges were never presented to anyone other than Cohen has his attorneys. Hence there were no indictments, and no one was an un-indicted co-fucking anything.

That's the one thing you can bet on your threads, some fucking commies says something ridiculous, creates a conspiracy theory and you run out a swear to it.

BTW it's not illegal for a lawyer to negotiate an NDA, to prevent embarrassment to his client and be reimbursed for his expenses by his client from their personal funds. Cohen was Trumps personal attorney, he never represented Trump for anything campaign related that I'm aware of.

.

 

[Skylar]

I did respond, you just didn't like the response.

No, you didn't respond to the OP and that has been the point all along; you were just trying to derail the thread, you fraud! No piss off...dismissed!

Could you please post the grand jury indictments on Cohen?

You know as well as I that there was no grand jury indictment for Cohen. He plead guilty and it was accepted by the Court yesterday and is part of the official record NOW.

It's clear to me that you are trying to establish a straw man around a false equivalency. Go ahead and waste your time and kick the shit out of that vacuous argument you're trying to establish, fool! So transparent, Tex, so I ain't playin' and wasting my time with such a poor looser!

Cohen presumably confessed to a negotiated list of charges, and the evidence supporting the charges were never presented to anyone other than Cohen has his attorneys. Hence there were no indictments, and no one was an un-indicted co-fucking anything.
[/quote
That's the one thing you can bet on your threads, some fucking commies says something ridiculous, create a conspiracy theory and you run out a swear to it.

BTW it's not illegal for a lawyer to negotiate an NDA, to prevent embarrassment to his client and be reimbursed for his expenses by his client from their personal funds. Cohen was Trumps personal attorney, he never represented Trump for anything campaign related that I'm aware of.

When your client is a candidate for public office and the payments are for the express purpose of helping the candidate's campaign....and the payment is in excess of campaign contribution limits....and you don't report any of it?

Oh, its thoroughly illegal.

Worse, there's a paper trail with a fake invoice demonstrating everything. And recordings of Trump discussing the payments.



The Trump Organization approved $420,000 in reimbursements to Michael Cohen related to his efforts before the 2016 election to silence women who claimed to have had affairs with President Donald Trump, according to new court filings....

....According to the charging document, prosecutors say Cohen approached Trump Organization executives asking to be reimbursed for "election-related" costs following the election, and that he began receiving the payments in February 2017....

.....Specifically, prosecutors say Cohen "sought reimbursement for that money by submitting invoices to the candidate's company, which were untrue and false."

"They indicated that the reimbursement was for services rendered for the year 2017, when in fact the invoices were a sham," the document said.

New court filing says the Trump Organization approved $420,000 in reimbursements to Michael Cohen connected to hush-money payments


So a secret payment with fake invoices AFTER the election? With the invoices fraudulently dated to make it look like Trump was paying for legal services in 2017....while it was reimbursement for an illegal campaign contribution BEFORE the election?

That's hardly Trump making a contribution to his own campaign. But a wildly criminal series of acts.

And Trump is at the center of all of it.