Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Thursday, November 16, 2017

Roger Stone and Matt Murdoch (ADDED NOTE)

From here:
Roger Stone says Senator Al Franken's time in the barrel is about to come #sexscandal
1:12 AM - Nov 16, 2017
The last panel of Daredevil #227 is one of the most famous panels in comics history:


As many of you will recall, I myself predicted that Franken would be framed on November 14. I chose Franken to illustrate my larger point: The "Believe Women" movement will be used to destroy Democrats. This is just the beginning.

I believe that Franken apologized not because he was actually guilty of doing anything wrong but because he was told that doing so would put the matter behind him quickly. Stupid, naive fool. Of course, there will be several more accusers before the week is out. He'll soon be out of the Senate and the seat will go to a Republican.

UPDATE: It's already started!

There will also be an avalanche of articles in "liberal" publications attesting to the credibility of Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, with no mention of Julie Hiatt Steele or any of the counter-evidence. (The Steele story is key to understanding current events.) "Feminists" like Rebecca Traister will, of course, find some excuse to demonize Hillary, as occurred in 2008.

Watch it happen. I called the shot with Franken, didn't I? I was right when I said that Trump would win the election, a position I maintained even when Hillary seemed to be lightyears ahead of him. I was also the first blogger to state that Putin was aiding the Trump campaign, in a post that name-checked Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Dmitri Firtash.

The "Believe Women" movement is predicated on the presupposition that women are too holy and pure ever to lie or to behave in a corrupt fashion. To which I say: Bullshit. James O'Keefe couldn't have ruined Acorn without the aide of a corrupt female accomplice. The only incorruptible person is St. Bernadette, and even she's not looking as good as she used to.

I knew something was amiss when people first started to use the term "movement." As I've been saying for years: All movements are bowel movements. These "movements" only seem to arise spontaneously. If you want to understand current events, you must comprehend that there is a group of James O'Keefian social manipulators operating with an unlimited budget.

And you can't accuse me of having different standards for Democrats. I also said that I did not believe Beverly Young Nelson's claim against Roy Moore (who is a sure bet to win in Alabama, no matter what you hear). Again: It's simply not physically possible to lock a passenger in a car that doesn't have electronic locks.

Moore will be in the Senate and Franken will be out. Watch it happen. Trump/Russia will go by the wayside and Hillary will go to jail after being framed for something she did not do. Watch it happen.

And "liberals" will help it happen.

I'll have to re-post my Salvator Mundi video on a later date. (See below.)

ADDED NOTE: The next "sin" to be exposed may well be Joe Biden's. I've known about this matter since 2008. Biden himself (whom I like) has recently hinted at the skeleton in his closet. The other person involved in this story has familial ties to a certain clan, and these ties will insure plenty of jokes from late-night comics. One of the most, er, noteworthy members of that clan is a big Trump fan -- so you can be sure that the Trumpers know all about this business already.
Permalink
Comments:
Voz co founder Matt Iglesias has already started his assault on the Clintons. He mentions Monica Lewinsky without mentioning that besides being a consensual affair, it was Lewinsky that initiated the affair.
 
The Believe Women Movement is a two edged sword unless we are to believe republicans are pure as driven snow. Franken has apologized for his sophomoric prank and says he welcomes an ethics investigation. Given the circumstances there wasn't much else he could do and his actions draw a clear line between Trump, Moore and Democrats. Given time this will go the way of the Hula Hoop as the fickle public latches on the next scandal du jore. The boy could cry wolf only a few times.
 
It won't go away. This is an operation.
 
Honestly, first thing I thought when I read the story was your prediction. You have powers more prophetic than Roger Stone!

Still don't know how this is going to shake out, but I think Franken is going to keep his seat. Between his apology, the submission to an ethics review, and, most importantly, the victim saying she accepts his apology and doesn't want him to resign, I think he will be safe. But I must say, that I could easily see another woman "come forward", and if that happens, Franken will be toast. I put "come forward" in quotes because with Bill Clinton being in the news, we should all remember how zealous the GOP will be in finding any women to throw an accusation toward Franken even if the accusation is false. I fear there will be a false accusation, but the left will jump the gun before the facts come out, Franken will resign, and then the truth will come out that the accusation isn't credible.

Democrats must tread very carefully on this matter. The GOP has no problem weaponizing sexual harassment/assault charges to destroy Democrats.
 
(Double post. Sorry I keep doing this.)

Also not sure if your take on feminists are correct. I've been reading a bunch of them, including Rebecca Traister, and very few want Franken to resign even though they are all disgusted by his behavior. It seems like it's mostly the preening left that wants him to resign. You know, the ones who think the Democrats haven't "had a reckoning" with Bill Clinton.
 
Did you see the photo? Pretty clear evidence that Franken DID do
something wrong. That's why he apologized - he is admitting, rightfully,
that his behavior was egregious. We all know that the worst predator
is in the White House. His self-admitted behavior on video did not stop him from
getting there. Don't worry -- it won't be liberal or conservative male politicians who will pay the '
price here. It will be women who will suffer from a huge backlash for our truth-telling. The Patriarchy
is alive and well and not going away anytime soon. Ask me - a 72 year old woman - or my daughters,
or my mother, or my grandmother. Ask Hillary.
 
Well, the second accuser on Franken has already come forward, a woman by the name of Melanie Morgan. Morgan claims she and Franken had a heated argument on one of Bill Maher's shows, and then Franken followed the angry dispute off-stage, subsequently stalking her for several days with angry telephone calls.

This feels too much like a hit job, particularly with Roger Stone in the mix. I'm hoping Franken holds fast. Let the ethics inquiry go forward and have everyone testify, under oath and in public. If we're going to have a witch trial, let everyone watch the shameful spectacle.

As for Dems preemptively calling for Franken to resign? They need to grow a spine and shut the hell up.

Peggysue
 
How exactly does a guy accused of being a child raping, tax dodging Russian mole get away with telling Al Franken off for sexual harassment? Is it because Democrats are a bunch of pussies? Yeah. Sorry to those offended by the word "pussies".... just exchange with the more acceptable word "dicks" if offended.

only in Amurikkka. Home of the PussyGrabber and Land of the GrabbedPussy.


 
If a Russian agent handed Democrats a 10 pound bag full of videos of Trump having sex with 13 year olds, you know what Democrats would do with it?

Take the bag and beat themselves over the head with it.
 
Two guys get into a boxing ring...

Dude A repeatedly punches the living shit out of Dude B.

Dude B apologizes profusely for bleeding all over the fucking boxing ring.

Guess who inevitably wins the match?


 
Biden will definitely be next. The Huffington Post is already attacking him for "getting too close to women":

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-harvey-weinstein_us_5a0a0ba8e4b00a6eece3a13e

We're on the verge of descending into a moment of mass hysteria. A year ago, Joe Biden was one of the most popular politicians in the country. People were sharing memes of him and Obama to cheer themselves up after the election. Now we're getting articles comparing him to Harvey Weinstein -- a serial rapist -- because he puts his arm around people. Note that not a single person is quoted as saying that Biden made them feel uncomfortable or unsafe -- it's all innuendo. If Biden does end up running, this stuff will certainly be used to undermine and sabotage his campaign. I can imagine that similar strategies will be used against pretty much anyone else who runs as a Democrat.
 
I think it's good for Franklin to get this thing out of the way if he is running. I myself hope he isn't, and it has nothing to do with the recent news. Some people are spreading the net wide enough to make sure the Clintons in it. They don't care about who or what suffers. As for Biden although I don't believe he has a chance, I welcome any effort to make sure it never happens.
 
Joseph I agree with everything you said. I'm so fed up with people on "the left" who refuse to understand the dynamics of these psyops. I maintain that 2016 election wad culmination if coup that gained momentum during Obama's presidency when Republicans declared goal was total obstruction and media complied by normalizing the hatred and vitriol displayed. The Snowald op was another piece of that. Liberals do not connect dots out of denial.
And while we're talking about inappropriate behavior by Franken, again St. Bernard's rape fantasy fan fic is never put under a microscope. The fact that media continue to sanctify him tells me that he is enabler of this coup. Most of broadcast media, NPR and NYT have been coopted.
This is so obvious to me.

 
Leeann Tweeden's use of loaded terms shows that this is a hit job. At this point in his life, Al Franken was earning a living as a comedian. Franken didn't "grope" Tweeden through her flack jacket. He posed in a staged photograph that was a parody of him groping her. Really bad taste on his part hovering his hands over her breasts, but in no way was this an actual sexual assault. This attempt at a joke took place in the cargo bay of an aircraft full of people and was cooperatively documented by an official photographer. There was no assault.

Tweeden is known to hang with Sean Hannity. Roger Stone showed that he had foreknowledge of this affair. Tweeden let it be known to the right people that she had this photograph. They helped her formulate her story. Now her leading part is over and she can sit back and play coy while others pile on... especially Democrats.

Al Franken did not grope anybody. This is a hit.
 
With all that is going on right now, I wish people would start to be more mature and realistic about others. First, humans in general sucks. Second, if a person is great at something that doesn't mean he is a great guy all around. People tend to idealize people for things that have nothing to do with morals, ideals or principals. That's why we keep getting disappointed in others. We demand that an athlete, artist, politician or any other talented person to have qualities of a saint. which totally unfair both to them and us. Of course, they should be held accountable like the rest of us, not more not less.
 
Franken has supporting witnesses. Very interesting article by Rob Kall of Op Ed News;

https://www.opednews.com/articles/What-s-the-Connection-Al-F-by-Rob-Kall-Al-Franken_Leeann-Tweeden_Sean-Hannity_Sexual-Harrassment-171117-154.html



Three paragraph's from a comment on a Washington Post article;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/?utm_term=.3ef5c73eff9d


Olgo Novar
8:20 AM PST
In 2006, an SNL comedy writer posed for a prank photo with his hands hovering above the armor plated Kevlar flak jacket, (designed to protect the chest from anti-aircraft artillery, grenades, shotguns and land mines; strong enough to stop a 9 mm bullet), of a sleeping 2011 Playboy nude model / 1994 Hooters calendar girl (one of “The Top Hooters Girls of all time”) / Frederick’s of Hollywood model.

In 2017, the dutiful, click-bait oriented press dutifully uses the word “grope” to describe this photo, without any evidence that the comedian was even touching, let alone groping, the ceramic inserts in the “Multithreat Body Armor System” jacket; and his far-right wing accuser, being asleep at the time, cannot know.

And the Sean Hannity Show commentator, with her smart glasses on, is further claiming that at one point the comic put his tongue in her mouth, during a rehearsal of their stage kiss, for one of their comedy sketches on the USO Tour.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Did Leonardo da Vinci REALLY paint the "Salvator Mundi"?



Since 2010, my ladyfriend (who has a degree in Art History) and I have collaborated on a project to determine the truth about Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi. At that time, many thought that the "red" version -- often called the de Ganay version -- was the likeliest to have come from the master's hand. In 2012, a "blue" Salvator Mundi, which used to be known as the Cook version, was identified as the genuine work by Leonardo.

The Cook version was purchased a few years ago by Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev, whose name has cropped up in certain discussions of the ongoing Trump/Russia scandal. Yesterday, that same painting was sold in a Christie's auction to an unknown buyer for a record price: $450 million. Our understanding is that the version previously owned by the de Ganay family was sold (for a much lower price) to a museum in Brazil.

We believe that both versions -- the red and the blue -- originated in Leonardo's studio, that both derive from the same cartoons (note that plural), that neither one was entirely painted by Leonardo, and that the de Ganay version has the best claim to be the prime version -- the original.

In 2013, we prepared a documentary to explain our findings. The film is unfinished. The final version -- if ever we do complete it -- will be some ten or fifteen minutes longer. Of the missing final act, I can say this: In 2010, my ladyfriend presented her findings to professors and colleagues at the University of California at Riverside, and the Renaissance specialist at UCR declared her work to be "inarguable." (Let us be clear: He said those words about the material which is not yet included in our film.)

Many of you will feel that this film ends "just when it was getting good." Apologies! Perhaps a complete version will appear soon.

The press has given the public a great deal of misinformation about these two works. I believe that this video will give audiences a much fuller understanding of the history and provenance of these two paintings. If you watch this video in a calm and objective frame of mind, you too may come to the conclusion that both paintings came from Leonardo's studio, and that the de Ganay should be considered the "prime" version. We invite viewers to double-check our sources and we welcome any and all serious counter-arguments.

Nota bene: It is my custom to edit video to a temp track. This technique allows greater freedom to rewrite and to rework sections of the film. The final version of this film will be narrated by my ladyfriend.

You may be wondering why we did not finish the film in 2013. To be honest, we are both a bit puzzled ourselves! We took a break from the project at a time when we could not determine the ownership of both paintings. (We knew that the de Ganay had been sold, but we did not know to whom.) After a while, we became diverted by...well, by life. My ladyfriend took a job at a local museum, and her duties have proven rather demanding.

This video was placed on YouTube quite a while ago, but was marked "private" until yesterday. We have decided to place it before the public because the record-smashing sale put the Salvator Mundi in the news.

Permalink
Comments:
The machine-generated subtitles are funny - sprinkled with naughty words like cock and cunt. Are the subtitles created added by YouTube?
 
Until I saw your comment, Michael, I wasn't aware that YouTube could auto-generate subtitles. I tested it just now. That's a pretty impressive capability!

In this case, I wrote the narration as a word file which was turned into audio via a text-to-speech app. That audio file was used when I edited the film. So that's a robot voice. The final version of the film (if one ever exists) will have a human narrator, of course. Apparently, YouTube can automatically take that voice and turn it back into written speech.

It does so with pretty good accuracy, but there are mistakes. The Cook version of the Salvator Mundi was indeed owned for a while by an American calling himself Kuntz, which was almost certainly a fake name. I tried to find out who this guy really was, but ran into a wall. Youtube apparently heard "Kuntz" as you-know-what.
 
Thanks for posting that very interesting video. Look for ward to you the completed project.
 
Fascinating vid, Joe. Thanks for putting it up. Only a few short months ago I read about the on-going arguments over these two works and was astonished when I heard that the one painting was up for auction, touted as the authenticated original. And the final price! Three times plus what was predicted.

Would love to see/hear your final conclusion in the video.

Peggysue
 
Thanks for sharing the video ... the quality and detail of the eyes and the leatherwork is astonishing, and I admire the depth of the analysis of the two works. Thanks again for sharing!
 
You guys really should finish this, it's fantastic. Well written and edited, and the timelines, reference imagery, and material explainers (nice use of the clip from 'agony and the ecstasy,' btw) all make for compelling viewing. It ends on a real cliffhanger, too.

Had you finished this sooner, who knows--you could've saved someone $400 mil.

Yeah, right...
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Tuesday, November 14, 2017

A few things

That was on FOX? Shep Smith offers a surprisingly good exposure of the right's many lies about the Uranium One deal. But he left out one important fact:

If Trump were really concerned about Rosatom's ownership of an American uranium mine, he could force a divestiture.

One Executive Order. That's all it would take. This fact alone proves that the whole charge is bogus.

Scandal, nothingburger, or trap? I'm suspicious of Jason Leopold's latest.
On Aug. 3 of last year, just as the US presidential election was entering its final, heated phase, the Russian foreign ministry sent nearly $30,000 to its embassy in Washington. The wire transfer, which came from a Kremlin-backed Russian bank, landed in one of the embassy’s Citibank accounts and contained a remarkable memo line: “to finance election campaign of 2016.”

That wire transfer is one of more than 60 now being scrutinized by the FBI and other federal agencies investigating Russian involvement in the US election. The transactions, which moved through Citibank accounts and totaled more than $380,000, each came from the Russian foreign ministry and most contained a memo line referencing the financing of the 2016 election.

The money wound up at Russian embassies in almost 60 countries from Afghanistan to Nigeria between Aug. 3 and Sept. 20, 2016. It is not clear how the funds were used. At least one transaction that came into the US originated with VTB Bank, a financial institution that is majority-owned by the Kremlin.
That's not a lot of money. Why on earth would Russia label the transfers "to finance election campaign of 2016"? That's akin to a gang of bank robbers spray-painting the words "GETAWAY CAR" on their getaway car.

Anyone wishing to pump that kind of money into the Trump campaign -- or any other campaign -- need merely donate 50 bucks at a time. Absolutely no-one keeps track of the small donors. Ding ding ding, over and over again. A computer program could do it. It's a nearly fool-proof method.

So what's the deal with those transfers? I have a theory.

By August 3, the media was already talking about the Trump/Russia connection. It would have made sense for Russia to make a modest donation to the Clinton campaign in order to besmirch her. This is, in fact, a classic Roger Stone tactic -- arranging for an enemy candidate to receive "donations" rom a group disliked by the general public. In 1972, George McGovern got money from an organization called "Gays for McGovern."

Speaking of dirty tricks...

"Believe Women" is already being used against Bill Clinton. Check out Caitlin Flanagan's scurrilous piece in The Atlantic...
Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.
This is crap.

Bill Clinton was not given any kind of a free pass. He was subjected to a tireless, ruthless inquisition by enemies who were utterly ruthless and extremely well-funded.

Flanagan refuses to let her readers see the evidence that these women lied, and that their stories transmogrified over time. Flanagan's deceptive account of the Broaddrick story is particularly infuriating: There's a damned good reason why even the National Fucking Enquirer wouldn't touch her story. (And that reason is not because the National Enquirer is part of the Evil Penismonster Conspiracy Against Women.)

I too say that we must believe the women. Not all women: Women are just as likely as men to be corruptible, bribe-able, and blackmailable. But some women are superbly resistant to corruption.

In fact, some women are downright heroic.

You know who I believe? Susan McDougal. She was imprisoned on bullshit charges and assured that she would walk -- and no doubt prosper, financially -- if she recited the script that the Republicans wanted her to recite.

I also believe Julie Hiatt Steele, the brave woman who proved Kathleen Willey a liar. Please note that propagandists like Caitlin Flanagan refuse to mention Steele. (So where do you get the best borscht in St. Petersburg, Caitlin?) The younger generation doesn't know her story, and the older folks have largely forgotten. The following was published in March of 2001:
Julie Hiatt Steele, hounded and prosecuted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr during the Clinton impeachment campaign of 1998-99, is facing severe financial and personal difficulties arising from Starr's vendetta against her.

Steele hasn't worked since February 1998, when she submitted an affidavit in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case undermining the credibility of Kathleen Willey, a one-time Clinton supporter who achieved notoriety by going on the Sixty Minutes television program in March 1998 and accusing Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances.

Steele lost her employment when the affidavit and her refusal to go along with Willey's version of events became public knowledge. Subsequently she became the target of an extraordinary campaign of prosecutorial terror and intimidation by Starr's office.

Steele was dragged before two grand juries. Her daughter and brother, as well as a former lawyer and accountant, were also interrogated. She was forced to turn over tax and bank records, credit reports and telephone records to Starr's investigators. Most despicably, the Office of the Independent Counsel threatened to move against Steele's parental rights, making public the fact that it was looking into the procedures—which were, in fact, entirely legal—by which she had adopted her son in Romania.

Ultimately, in January 1999, Starr indicted Steele on three counts of obstructing justice and one charge of making false statements. She faced the possibility of 35 years in jail and a one million dollar fine. Starr's office pursued its legally baseless and vindictive case against Steele to trial in May 1999. The case ended in a hung jury and mistrial, a humiliating defeat for Starr. His office decided not to pursue a retrial.

Starr's conduct toward Steele was of a piece with his legal attack on other would-be witnesses against the Clintons, including Susan McDougal, whom he kept in prison for 18 months on contempt charges. In both cases, Starr used his legal powers to prosecute and harass people who refused to give testimony that supported his vendetta against Clinton. Both McDougal and Steele assert that Starr and his band of legal toughs persecuted them because they refused to give false testimony as demanded by the Independent Counsel.

Having run through her savings and unable to work for emotional and physical reasons since her trial ended, Steele, a divorced mother of two grown daughters and a 10-year-old son, now faces the loss of her house in Virginia.
Here's a recent tweet from Julie Hiatt Steele:
Starr wanted us locked up for refusing to lie. Starr, via the OIC, informed me that they needed a Kathleen Willey grope. They said I could pick my own date, it could be consensual or not. Refusal would result in indictment. I refused & indicted
In a later tweet, she says that she was acquitted "but lost everything but our dignity."

"Believe Women"? No. Believe the RIGHT women. Believe the women who don't take the pay-off. Believe the women who act selflessly and with courage. Believe women who would rather lose everything than kowtow to the right-wing manipulators. Believe the women who, when society hands them lined paper, have the courage to write the other way.

Believe Susan McDougal. Believe Julie Hiatt Steele.

Don't believe Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey or Juanita Broaddrick. And in the future, do NOT believe Caitlin Flanagan.

You've heard the phrase "A wolf in sheep's clothing"? People forget that half of all wolves are female.

The Future. Lest you think that this blog exists purely to defend the Clintons -- with whom I've often disagreed on policy -- let's consider the next election. We don't know yet whom the Dems will choose. If they choose Biden -- well, I know something about Biden that you do not. Let's leave it at that.

As a thought experiment, let's posit that Al Franken jumps into the race (even though he says he won't). Everyone loves Al, right? I'd vote for him. Hell, I'd work for him. But if he got any traction, if he got the nomination -- well, you know damn well what would happen.

He'll be accused of committing acts of sexual abuse during his SNL days.

That's not just a prediction. It's a mortal lock. It's an absolute certainty.

And on cue, right-wing plants in the "liberal" media (why are you squirming, Caitlin?) will tell Dems that we must always Believe Women, even when Women make unbelievable claims about lovable Al Franken.

Never forget: The Alt Right has LIMITLESS funds. They can pay millions to make any smear -- however baseless, however inane -- seem credible.

Can you be 100 percent certain that (oh, say) Laraine Newman would refuse an offer of $20 million to tell lies about Franken? Maybe she would refuse that offer. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure that she would. But can you be 100 percent certain that every woman who worked on SNL (both behind the scenes and on camera) during Franken's time on the show would refuse an offer of $20 million? Can you be absolutely certain that all of those women are incorruptible?

Even (oh, say) Victoria Jackson?

Mark my words: The propagandists possess the power to convince half the country that Al Franken had Gilda Radner killed to shut her up. The same people who gave us birtherism and Pizzagate will not shrink from the Gilda Radner Murder Conspiracy.

Shit like that WILL happen. It's a lock. If Franken doesn't run, then any other male Dem will face these accusations. This is the future that the Believe Women movement makes inevitable.
Permalink
Comments:
Caitlin Flannagan is a lousy writer, a right wing hack and a low quality human being. Her presence in The Atlantic along with the likes of Haidt led me to drop the mag. My theory is that they publish Coates to lure decent folks in.

Joseph, you may be right about the cynical use to which Beleve Women may be put. The strategy now is to normalize Trump. That would be why Bill Clinton is stll an issue, besides Clinton Derangement Syndrome, the purpose of which now is to normalize Trump -- and to supply pink slime (google it if you're unaware) labeled "red meat" to the rubes.

Now things have changed, times are stranger, standards no longer exist at all. But even in the fairly recent past, some possibly marginal figure would run one of the new memes out on a blog and a month or year later if it was received well (I gusee) it's all over the place. Others failed and became unfindable. The most memorable of these was a google search for "death cult" that retuned, high in the results, something like "the Dems are a death cult because they used the lates mass shooting to advance their gun control agenda. It vanished in a week.

Anyway, it had always seemed to me that Obama would have been a great candidate for such a campaign of well orchestrated fake news. The closer we got to November 2008, the more I expected it to happen. Why didn't the, to my thinking, very likely half dozen young blonde women, nicely paid by Roger Stone, appear with stories of escapades? Why didn't Roger & co, who this time had a real smear campaign operating, drag out ye olde "Hillary's a lesbian" thing? (Typing that just now, something I've never typed before, autocomplete supplied "lesbian" as a choice. Jesus.)


The right wingers have nearly infinite funding, zero conscience or regard for truth and have a long history of dirty tricks. So why not some that might have been expected of them?

Two reasons come to mind:
Oppo research showing no opportunity for such events.
Polling suggesting that the fake news isn't believable.

But each of those reasons can be sseen to be somewhat weak.

I'll be looking for some trial run stuff about Franken.



 
Unless people grow a brain and start asking the right questions nothing will change. Why the establishment both in the left(?) And the right hate the Clintons so much? Why are they so afraid of another Clinton in WH?
 
The dossier said the Russians funded the interference campaign with wire transfers to Russian government facilities overseas. Couldn't the wire transfers reported by BuzzFeed be those?
 
THANK YOU for this post. I've lost my patience with anyone suggesting the left somehow didn't atone for Bill Clinton. It's complete horsepucky. Unless the standard is a woman making an accusation of sexual harrassment/assault is always believed regardless of the evidence, then Jones/Broaddrick/Wiley are simply not credible. And as you so brilliantly point out, believing the three women above means disbelieving women who contradict their stories. So in the Bill Clinton cases, there are some women you have to disbelieve no matter what side you're on. It sure discredits the idea that women must always be believed.

I am too young to have lived through this whole ordeal, but does anyone know why Starr and the OIC themselves were never investigated for abusing their power? Or was it like so many American scandals where it was decided that we should just move on?
 
Shoot. I also forget to add for all these people chastising the left for not reckoning with Bill Clinton, if they really think this is true, then you have to advocate for Trump resigning immediately. His sexual misdeeds are an order of magnitude greater than the worst accusations against Bill. The fact that I haven't seen the same rash of articles calling for Trump's resignation shows this is all about Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Goddamn I hate our media.
 
Caitlin Flannagan, has something in common with a majority of the Al Gore bashers basher brigade back in 2000. Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Maureen Dowd all belong to an ethnic group that has a higher than average incidence of assault by pedophile priests.
 
Good points, Joseph.

And yes, as great as Sen. Franken is...yep, I can see this being directed against him (even though the man is a clean slate). Plus never forget that the Berners will still be sending withering fire his way because to them, it's all about getting Sanders elected and who cares if the GOP screw things up even further?

I'd say one reason for the pivot back to Bill Clinton is because it appears that very few in DC and in the media have read Conason and Lyon's THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT or have seen the great documentary based on the book. That book--along with David Brock's BLINDED BY THE RIGHT--exposed the sordid mess that was the GOP's relentless assault on the Clintons during the 1990s. But it also appears that some of the loudest voices on the Left haven't read those books either--see H.A. Goodman, Walker Bragman.
 
I just half-heard a more believable explanation for the Russian money on the Stephanie Miller Show. I promise to go double check this and report back if I'm just totally wrong when I'm not late for work. What I heard was that there was a Russian election going on and the money could well have been for the purpose of enabling Russian citizens who were outside the country to vote.
 
Matt Yglasias is engaging in revisionist history concerning the Lewinsky affair as well.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/15/16634776/clinton-lewinsky-resigned
 
I voted against WJC in the '92 primary, not because of morality, but politics. I figured if the rw machine could trash the bland Mike Dukakis the way they did, his past would be easy fodder for them.

When the word of this scandal broke, I felt gut-punched, and sick at heart. I thought it was worthy of his resignation. But not of impeachment. I thought he was right to resist that. Later, when I found out of the many abuses of the Starr operation, it informed me why he shouldn't have resigned.

I still believe he disgraced his office, and that was a shame. But his boss, ultimately, the American people, didn't favor his ouster.

XI
 
Thank you for saying what needed to be said about Caitlin Flanagan. I was so angry at some of the women over at Reddit's Gendercritical subreddit because they believed whole the bullshit Flanagan was peddling.

Flanagan knows better, but she is counting on the younger generation, and people who didn't follow the bogus Clinton scandals, to peddle her lies and rewrite history.

Most of the "scandals" were financed by Richard Mellon Scaife via the Arkansas Project and outfits like the Federalist Society, and all were designed for the sole purpose of destabilizing and hamstringing the Clinton administration from doing anything. The GOP and right-wing were motivated by one thing and one thing only: Clinton and Gore posed a threat to the GOP's Southern Strategy, and the GOP couldn't tolerate it.
 
Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant in her clumsy attempts at bagging the president, as any of us who were around then and followed the story knows. She was the one who went to D.C. for specifically that purpose, bragging to friends about getting her "presidential knee pads." Some are trying to claim that BC was engaging in sexual harassment, but of course he wasn't. In fact, he broke it off for family reasons and had her sent to the Pentagon, whereupon she shot her big mouth to Linda Tripp, and the rest of it is history.

I get sick and tired of having to correct people on this.
 
OTE, thanks. I can't recall where, but somewhere on the internets there is a quote for Roger Stone in which he gleefully admits that the younger generation doesn't know the details of what happened to Bill Clinton, and thus the right can now re-sell all of the stories that were exposed as bullshit in the 1990s.

XI, I'm with you. I supported Kerrey in '92 precisely because a war hero seemed more impervious to attack than someone like Clinton. I'm STILL pissed at Bill Clinton for sucking up all of the media's attention.

Ysee, I'm not necessarily asking people to be pro-Clinton. I'm saying that if you are going to offer an anti-Clinton argument, do so for non-bullshit reasons.
 
Caitlin Flanagan update:

In the least surprising development in human history, she is now circling in on her real target: Hillary Clinton.

"The next stage of the Bill Clinton reckoning will be an honest acceptance of Hillary Clinton's complicity."

https://twitter.com/CaitlinPacific/status/930924522995200000
 
A final note, OTE: You demonstrate my point perfectly. Monica Lewenski now does not say "I was sexually harassed." She says "I fell in love with my boss." That's precisely what she says in her TED talk. Falling in love with your boss -- and having your affections reciprocated -- is NOT a scenario in which a male sexually harasses a female.

For that reason, it should have been utterly out of bounds to ask Clinton about Monica in the Paula Jones case.

When feminists try to argue that Monica was "harassed," they lose me. That kind of argument is not just strained, it's totally insane. It's also very useful to Roger Stonian manipulators.

Look, sex is sex and love is love, and both love and sex will always be messy. People will always do stupid things. People will always get hurt. Hearts will always be broken. But stupidity, hurt and heartbreak do NOT equal sexual harassment -- and those who pretend otherwise are, in their own way, monsters.




 
here's poor little Caitlin getting her clock cleaned by Colbert in 2006 & 2014:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/x40hn2/the-colbert-report-caitlin-flanagan

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/wwqhgn/the-colbert-report-caitlin-flanagan

& Joan Walsh on Caitlin:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yes-caitlin-flanagan-you-_b_20252.html
 
Anybody who tries to peddle the fiction that Lewinsky was at all a victim of BC is going to be corrected. I am not hesitant to call people liars if they peddle it.

The ONLY reason BC ever let down his guard with her was because of the extreme stress he was going under when the GOP shut down the government over Medicare. I seriously doubt he would have done it otherwise.

The ONLY man who ever victimized her was Kenneth Starr. Period. He ruined a lot of people with his witch hunt of the Clintons.

I loathe Lewinsky because she has not moved on with her life by doing the right thing and being nondescript. She has literally capitalized on her dubious fame, which I think was her motive from the get-go. Remember, she had a good teacher in that regard, and that was her mother, who was also a celebrity groupie.


 
Boy were you prophetic about Al Franken.
 
I know it’s just coincidence (do I?), but it’s still a bit puzzling that Al Franken is exposed just hours after you surmised the possibility! Please tell us who’s next…
-Brumel
 
I guess you called it Joseph:

http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/
 
Folks, the fulfillment of the Franken "prophecy" freaked even ME out. I chose Franken to illustrate my point because he seemed so unlikely to be caught up in such a scandal.

The reaction on Kos right now seems very troll-ish. There's a "2008" feel about it.

And that's all I'll say about the matter for a day or so. I put a lot of work into that video about the Salvator Mundi, so I'd prefer to keep that post at the top of my blog for a while.
 
You must have your finger on some kind of universal pulse, Joe. Could not believe that the first thing I read this morning was the Al Franken story. My son called from Philly and said: "Well, they didn't get Menendez (who frankly I have no sympathy for), so now they're after Franken."

Of course, he didn't know the half of it. But it pretty much creeped me out.

You're on a roll. And I did read/view the Salvator Mundi post. Fascinating post.

Peggysue
 
HA! Maybe you inspired them to go after him... they probably knew about this for a long time really. Anyone else you want to inspire them to bring down...they are all probably worthy prospects. Most men at one point or another, do some thing insanely violating or demeaning to women at some point. Hell - a friend grabbed my tit just the other day, because we are friends???!!! I had to tell him never to do that again. Why should I have to tell a man that, let alone a friend? It's time for men to start growing up- women deserve respect.

 
I just love how these willfully ignorant so called 3rd Wave Feminists are attacking 2nd Wave Feminists for not attacking Bill Clinton back in the 90's. Guess what, just maybe 2nd Wave Feminists knew Jones, Wiley and Broaddrick weren't credible because they changed their stories from the consensual contact stories they testified to, to harassment, etc... when they became Fox News regulars.

Third Wavers like Traister, etc.. hate 2nd Wave Feminists like Hillary- who actually has accomplished a hell of a lot of things to help millions of girls and women around the world. And inspired millions more- Around 80-90% of the women who turned up for the Women's March were Hillary voters. All the women that ran and won in the Virginia election said Hillary inspired them to run. The majority of the Indivisible chapters around the US are staffed mostly by women who backed Hillary in 2016. This is what the fauxgressive left (Berners and Steiners) and the right wing want to shut down. They don't want a revival of 2nd wave style feminism, a multiracial feminism that can actually change our culture for the better.

What have these 3rd Wave Feminists that hate Hillary so much ever done to help women and girls- nothing. I'm in my early 50's and am a late 2nd wave feminist. In the 2nd wave we knew some women would actively try to undermine liberalism and even feminism, most infamously Phyllis Shafley. (But sometimes by even claiming, at times, they were feminists, like Pagalia, Dowd, Roife, etc...)

Ciarda
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Monday, November 13, 2017

I'm not the only one who thinks that the "Believe Women" movement will soon benefit the Trumpers. UPDATE: Why Beverly's tale is not a "lock"


Attorney Gloria Allred represents a woman named Beverly Young Nelson, who says that Roy Moore attempted to rape her (Nelson) when she was 16:
Nelson said she was waiting for her boyfriend to pick her up from work one night when Moore offered to give her a ride home.

"I trusted Mr. Moore because he was a district attorney," Nelson said.

When Nelson got in Moore's car, she said he drove behind the restaurant and parked near a dumpster instead of taking her home. Nelson said Moore groped her and tried to force her head onto his crotch. Nelson says she yelled and tried to leave the car, but Moore locked the door.

"I was not going to allow him to force me to have sex with him," Nelson said. "I was terrified. I thought he was going to rape me. At some point, he gave up."

Nelson said before Moore opened the door and either she fell out or he pushed her out, he said. '"You're just a child and I am the District Attorney of Etowah County, and if you tell anyone about this, no one will ever believe you."'

Nelson says she had bruises on her neck after the assault but covered them with makeup.

Nelson says she told her sister about the incident two weeks later. Nelson told her mother about four years ago, and she told her husband before they got married 13 years ago, she said.
Is this claim credible? On initial glance, it seems so. But I also have some problems:

1. Gloria Allred also represented (probably pro-bono) the Trump accuser known initially as "Katie Johnson," whose story I consider unlikely. Allred no doubt acted in good faith, but I'm not sure that she was wise. "Katie" was also promoted by the ultra-dubious Robert Morrow, partner to Roger Stone. His involvement suggests that she might have been a set-up designed to injure the credibility of women offering real abuse accusations against Trump.

2. We don't have an organization like the Washington Post behind the Nelson story. Whatever you may think of the WP, it is undeniably a "sue-able" entity with deep pockets. For legal reasons which should be obvious to all -- even though they are not obvious to many Trumpers -- the WP is going to research the hell out a spectacular claim before publishing anything that opens them up to a court action. That's not what's going on here: Beverly Young Nelson -- so far -- seems to be on her own.

Has anyone actually talked with the mother, the husband, and the sister? What will happen if they give us reason to doubt Beverly's credibility? We're told that Moore left a message in her high school yearbook: Is the handwriting genuine, and is the ink correct for the claimed time period?

(Incidentally, Gateway Pundit calls the WP "far left." Good lord. Do people actually believe that crap?)

3. We must understand that we are facing an extremely well-funded conspiracy that is capable of anything. I am not referring to a conspiracy to promote Roy Moore: I am talking about a conspiracy to put and keep Donald Trump in office. More than that: It's a conspiracy to convert this country to Trumpism, to make the current nightmare permanent. It is easy to see how the conspirators might promote a false claimant against Moore in order to injure the credibility of the real claimants.

4. Even if Beverly Neson is telling the absolute truth, the revelation of her testimony right now -- with Allred by her side -- will probably push Moore's poll numbers up a couple of points. That's Alabama for you.

In order to navigate these treacherous waters, you have to think at all times like Roger Stone, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and Machiavelli. You have to think like the dirtiest dirty trickster ever employed by the CIA. You have to think like a professional grifter, like a ruthless carny. Trust no-one. Do not even trust a tearful woman telling you a story that accords with what you already believe about a man you know to be a creep.

UPDATE. Listening to Beverly Nelson's press conference again, one detail really bothered me: She said that she tried to get out of the car but Moore "reached over" and locked the door, preventing her escape. That's not how car door locks worked. The phrase "reached over" indicates that we are not talking about an electronic locking system. With manual locks, it is impossible to keep someone locked IN a car.

On CNN just now, I heard a proponent of the "Believe Women" mentality insist that we must accept all of Moore's accusers or none of them -- and that any man who questions even one of these women must be doing so for psychological reasons. Apparently, evidence and logic no longer count.

I now think that Beverly is a ringer.

I'm not the only one saying it. I pissed off some readers when I suggested that our new 11th Commandment -- "Thou shalt never doubt anyone making an accusation of sexual abuse" -- will soon be used to help the Trumpers. But look at what happened to George Takei: His travails have the Alt Rightists cackling with glee -- and his tale is but prologue to what is to come.

Brian Beutler gets it. You simply must read his new piece "Breitbart's coming exploitation of the Believe Women movement."
Unfolding against the backdrop of the post-Weinstein revolution, the Moore scandal exposes the conservative propaganda machine in the ugliest and most discrediting possible fashion. But these cultural changes are all but destined to collide with one another in the opposite direction, in a way that exploits both the beneficence of the “believe women” campaign, and the even-handedness of the mainstream media. It is a collision we as a political culture are not equipped to handle, the consequences of which are almost too awful to contemplate.

Imagine it’s September or October 2020, and out of nowhere multiple women accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of sexual abuse, but instead of surfacing in a meticulously sourced story in a news outlet with a healthy tradition of careful reporting, it runs in a blind item on Breitbart.com. Or imagine such a story about a current Democratic candidate or leader landed in such an outlet tomorrow.
We saw what form this might take a year ago, when Steve Bannon, the Breitbart impresario who chaired Donald Trump’s campaign, responded to the unearthed videotape of Trump boasting about committing sexual assault by parading Bill Clinton’s accusers around the second presidential debate.

There is more than a kernel of truth at the bottom of the idea that Bill Clinton was a sexual deviant, or that he deserved more social and legal censure than he endured, but it is also farcical to imagine that Bannon and Breitbart were first and foremost interested in seeking justice. They ran factually questionable counter-ops in bad faith, to neutralize Trump’s liability, suggesting Hillary Clinton was, through her loyalty to Bill, similarly tainted. The psychological sabotage at the debate was an ancillary benefit.
It is taken for granted at this point that the next Democratic presidential nominee will become the focal point of bad faith conspiracy theories, amplified by the right wing noise machine. But it is only in the realm of sex abuse that liberals will have committed in advance to lending credence to accusations of wrongdoing. “Believe women” is an important movement, but it also obligates its adherents not to dismiss thinly-sourced allegations out of hand, even when they appear in outlets that have torched their credibility—and that impulse will be magnified by the mainstream media ethic of manufacturing symmetry between partisan teams.

I can’t imagine a more straightforward way to force liberals into a toxic cycle of recriminations. Obviously, as in the cases of Weiner and Weinstein, liberals don’t reflexively circle wagons around accused abusers, but propagandists thrive on the proliferation of doubt, and in this case the doubt would stem from the far right’s inherent lack of credibility. We underrate—as in haven’t considered at all—how low the rot of bad faith in conservative media could drag the rest of us, the whole country, all on its own. But the test of it is almost certainly coming.
I agree with most of this, although I have a few quibbles. I do not believe that Clinton is a "deviant," unless we define deviancy to mean "heterosexual male who had sex outside of marriage." I also believe that Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick have all told stories which expanded over time, and that Broaddrick in particular demonstrates that not all cries of "rape" are equally credible. Allow me to repeat an earlier post:
The Broaddrick tale is long and involved, as these stories invariably are, but the bottom line comes to this: She has no credibility. No objective party who has examined her tale believes that Bill Clinton flew into rape mode the moment he met her. David Brock (when he was a right-wing hit man) couldn't take her seriously. Even the National freakin' Enquirer couldn't take her seriously.

Juanita Broaddrick attended a pro-Clinton fundraiser after the alleged incident. She told the lawyers for Paula Jones: "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton."

(For more context, see here.)

After the spirit of art took hold of Juanita, she not only spoke of rape, she added the detail that Bill Clinton savagely bit her face, leaving a lasting wound. Oddly, there are no photos of this bite mark. (Yes, children: Cheap cameras were widely available back then, and nearly everyone had at least one.) There are no medical or police records.
I believe that the current "Believe Women" movement is being manipulated. It's all a massive Roger Stonian ploy to prepare the way for a newer, better version of Juanita Brodderick -- Juanita 2.0.

This brings me to my other issue with Beutler. He avers that the Alt Rightists are going to use false sexual accusations against the next Democratic candidate. Why wait? It's perfectly obvious that the neofascists are running against the Clintons, and will continue to do so for decades after Bill and Hillary are dead. Trump may seek to destroy democracy itself under the guise of protecting the nation from the Clinton/Soros menace.

I predict that a new "Bill raped me" accusation will come from a former "Epstein girl" from Russia who will claim that Bill Clinton raped her when she was underaged. Millions of dollars will be spent on backstopping this story. ("Backstopping" is a spy term which refers to the concoction of detail to make a false identity seem real. You can't sell a fake Monet without first creating a fake provenance.) When that story hits, the world will forget about Trump/Russia.

You've no doubt heard about Roger Stone's rules. Cannon's rule: Think like Stone. Whatever happens, anywhere in the world, ask yourself: How would Roger manipulate this? When predicting the future, ask yourself: What would Roger do with unlimited resources?

My other rule: All "movements" are bowel movements. I cringed the first time I saw the words "Believe Women movement." Even a movement which seems beneficial and necessary can be perverted to Alt Rightist ends.

I know what you're thinking: "That's a very paranoid attitude, Mr. Cannon." Well, you know what old Chuck Manson used to say: "Paranoia is just another form of awareness, and awareness is just another form of love."
Permalink
Comments:
To add to the dubious credibility of Broaddrick, Joe Conason, who as I'm sure you know wrote the definitive book about the Bill Clinton scandals titled The Hunting of the President, says he thinks Broaddrick was forced to tell the lie about her rape or face going to jail like Susan McDougal. His Twitter timeline has been outstanding in response to Bill Clinton whataboutism.

https://twitter.com/JoeConason/status/929793124989308928

And I should add, no, you are not too cynical. I am now coming to believe that the biggest thing holding liberals back is they are not cynical enough about the right. Once you understand they virtually never act in good faith, fighting them is much easier. I know I get about 10% as worked up about their nonsense since I started adopting this attitude.
 
Alas, it's started already. Just look at this ridiculous tweet from MSNBC's Chris Hayes:

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/929109210968805376

Apparently "believing women" now means we should believe a person who swore under oath that something didn't happen, and now claims that it did. So, when should we "believe" her? Which of her two contradictory accounts is the one we should endorse? I file the Broaddrick story right down there with the story of the woman -- equally passionate and tearful about it -- who insists that Hillary Clinton murdered her cat.

What people don't realize is that automatically giving every single accuser the benefit of the doubt backfires when you're talking about people with powerful enemies -- enemies who can easily afford to bribe people to make false accusations.
 
J.D.:

Believe it or not, the firestrom around Hayes's tweet is what eventually prompted Joe Conason to issue his rebukes.
 
FYI About manual door locks. Depending on the make pushing down the plunger disabled the inside door handle as well as the outside. You had to reach around and pull up the plunger to open the door. A teen girl trying to do that while pinned by a grown man would be near impossible.
 
Nonsense. The lock knob was mere inches away from her right shoulder. Why not just pull it up?
 
About the lock knob. To pull it up she'd need to use her left hand. Quite possibly it was otherwise occupied.

 
My clear recollection of Chevy products is that holding the lock down kept the door locked. Guys working those traps knew how their car doors worked, and how to keep them locked.

I saw her announcement. She seemed credible, with people she'd told over the years. One telling facet of the story is that she consistently referred to him as "Mr. Moore," revealing the sordid hierarchy of privilege.

Then, consider that new piece of information, that Moore had been kicked olut of the local mall for leching after teenagers.
 
Tom, I've owned cars by Chevy, Ford, AMC, Datsun, Toyota, Honda and VW -- boy-oh-BOY do I miss my '75 beetle! But I've never owned a car in which it was possible to keep someone trapped in the passenger seat.

(I was tempted to add the words "And lord knows I've tried!" But folks might take that seriously.)

That said, the shopping mall stories DO have the "ring of real," as does the original WP report.
 
About the door lock....a 16 year old girl suddenly fighting off an older, more experienced, heavier man would not necessarily have the presence of mind to be able to twist around and pull up the lock. Both her hands might have been engaged in pushing him off, and he might have had his arm around her in such a way that he was blocking access to the door lock (I can actually imagine this scenario quite easily).

None of these women came forward for money or fame; they have clearly struggled with their survivor-ship for years, and each of them thought she was the only one. I am proud of them for coming forward, for speaking truth to power, and for their willingness to have their truths attacked by small-minded people looking for any perceived inconsistency. How about showing a little manly support, Joseph?
 
Consider the possibility that Moore "reached over" Ms. Nelson's shoulder and pushed down a mechanical lock control from which the plastic golf tee handle had been removed. The skinny threaded shaft would be easy to push down -- not so easy to pull up without the handle.
 
"...I've never owned a car in which it was possible to keep someone trapped in the passenger seat."



Maybe. But I seriously doubt that you ever felt motivated to fiddle with the lock system to see if you could.

There are vehicle registration records. What was Roy Moore driving at this time?
 
I don't know, I can see the door lock thing going either way. My friends and I would sometimes try to "trap" each other in the passenger seat of my parents old '76 Chevy station wagon. It never worked for long, but then we weren't trying to molest each other and had roughly equal strength (and, of course, weren't REALLY trying to trap each other). It did work for a minute or two though, and I could see a young girl like that with a full grown man she's trying to fight off have a hard time getting out if he's intent on keeping her in. Still, your point is taken and it does seem like she would have been able to get out if she kept trying.

I also agree with you completely about where this could, and probably will, lead. The right loves to hoist the left with their own petard so to speak, since the right has done it to themselves so many times over the years and gotten tired of the left pointing it out and laughing at them.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Sunday, November 12, 2017

The two oldest professions

Politico tells a spy story that illuminates the current Russia scandal. In 1986, the CIA and the FBI learned that an American, identity unknown, was passing secrets to the Soviets. In 2001, they determined that the traitor was FBI employee Robert Hanssen. The FBI used a crude tactic to uncover Hanssen: They paid a Russian intelligence operative a million dollars to spill the beans.

Spying has been called the world's second oldest profession. Paying for information may be the oldest strategy employed within that profession.

Keep all of this in mind as you think about the Steele dossier. We are told that Steele paid for some of the information in that dossier. The Republicans have tried to convince the country that payment of Russian sources is the same thing as colluding with the Russians.

That's crazy.

When the Bush II administration paid a million bucks to discover Hanssen's identity, the administration did not collude. What happened at that time may not have been pretty, but it wasn't collusion.

If you pay to learn Antoine's secret recipe for Oysters Rockefeller, nobody at Antoine's will consider you a colluder.

John Schindler is weird. Unlike Louise Mensch, he manages to get published in respectable places -- yet he still gives me the heebie jeebies. If he wants us to trust him, why does he call his operation "The 20 Committee"? The name comes from a WWII deception operation: "20" = XX = Double Cross.

A couple of days ago, he published a piece which warned that the Kremlin has plans to push fake Trump sex tapes. Such a strategy has historical precedent: An eastern bloc service used lookalikes to create a fake video of "Ronald Reagan" being serviced in a rather humiliating way by "Vicky Morgan." Putin has used sex tapes -- both genuine and phony -- to destroy political opponents.

One tactic would be to publicize a Trump sex tape and then offer proof that it is not authentic. There was a similar plan in the works back in the days of Watergate. The Nixon forces hoped to distribute a bogus audio recording of Nixon saying incriminating things to E. Howard Hunt; revealing the tape as a fake would have given all of Nixon's opponents a black eye.

Schindler's scenario makes sense to me conceptually. But I still can't trust the guy. Here's one reason why:
A half-century ago, when our Intelligence Community was assessing if there were Kremlin moles inside our spy agencies (spoiler: there were), a nasty bureaucratic fight ensued that dragged on for years. The protagonist was James Angleton, the CIA’s top counterspy for two decades, who coined the term “wilderness of mirrors” to describe the impenetrable mystery of certain espionage operations.
Schindler leaves out a key fact: Angleton was a nut. That isn't just my assessment; that was the opinion of John Gittinger, the CIA's top psychiatrist. Angleton was ultra-paranoid, ruthless, manipulative, resentful -- and incredibly powerful. It is said that he even had his own private assassination squad, run by a man named Boris Pash. (Added note: A reader has corrected me; see discussion of Gittinger and Angleton in comments.)

(Incidentally, many of the latest JFK assassination documents have Angleton's fingerprints all over them. I would argue -- at another time, alas -- that you cannot properly understand these files unless you comprehend Angelton's role in the assassination. As longtime readers know, I think that Angleton masterminded the whole thing.)

Let's get back to the dossier:
As I’ve written about the Steele dossier, although a great deal of its raw intelligence has turned out to be true, large portions reek of disinformation— including the most salacious bits. As I explained:
The dossier’s “pee-pee tape” claim is viewed with derision by most Western spies who know the Russians. It’s very likely that the Kremlin possesses kompromat on the president—senior intelligence sources from several countries have confirmed to me that unpleasant videos of Trump exist—yet there’s no reason to believe Steele’s particular claim here, without corroborating evidence.
Schindler's use of the term "disinformation" implies that the pee-pee claim came from Russian sources. As noted before, Steele lists three sources (D, E and F), two of whom were part of Team Trump; the third was a Ritz hotel employee.

Epstein. Schindler then switches the topic to Jeffrey Epstein, aficionado of underaged females.
There appear to be connections between Epstein’s debased antics and Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort, now termed “the winter White House.” Hard facts remain elusive, however, and perhaps the media’s lack of ardor for getting to the bottom of this sordid case may have something to do with the fact that Epstein’s pals are a powerful bunch—and Bill Clinton is mixed up in this too.
The link goes to a Politico piece about Virginia Roberts, now Virginia Giuffre, the Epstein victim who made claims against Alan Dershowitz. For conservative propagandists, the trick has always been to portray Virginia as credible if her testimony can be used against Bill Clinton while simultaneously attacking the credibility of her claims against Dershowitz. The propagandists have managed to perform that trick with amazing dexterity, even though Virginia's complaint paints Clinton as innocent and Dershowitz as anything but.

Most people don't know that Epstein recruited Virginia Roberts when she was all of 15 years old and working for Trump at the Mar-A-Lago. If I may be permitted a bit of self-quotation:
Question: Is it common for a country club to employ girls of that age? Perhaps one of my readers can help me out here. I know many things, but I'm ill-educated on the subject of country clubs.

Incidentally, Trump may have another reason to regret ever purchasing the Mar-a-Lago: It turns out that Trump -- the candidate who insists that American jobs should go only to American citizens -- employed many guest workers from eastern Europe.

(Would you consider me a sensationalist if I mentioned, in this context, the fact that Jeffrey Epstein routinely surrounded himself with young girls imported from eastern Europe?...)
Fifteen year-old Virginia Roberts was asked to give Epstein a massage when he was at the Mar-A-Lago. That's how they met. We don't know if Trump arranged that first encounter, but we can state that Trump was Virginia's employer.

Let us here pause to note one of the great Epstein mysteries: How did he make his billions?
"My belief is that Jeff maintains some sort of money-management firm, though you won't get a straight answer from him," says one well-known investor. "He once told me he had 300 people working for him, and I've also heard that he manages Rockefeller money. But one never knows. It's like looking at the Wizard of Oz -- there may be less there than meets the eye."
Perhaps he "manages" money for billionaires not named Rockefeller. A close reading of this post may give you an idea or two as to who those non-Rockefeller billionaires might be.

Another Epstein mystery: How did he "acquire" a number of young (very young) women from eastern Europe?

Dirty business. In previous posts, we've noted that Semyon Mogilevich is considered the most powerful and dangerous of the Russian mobsters. His associates have included Felix Sater and his father. The younger Sater later joined forces with Trump (although Trump doesn't like to admit it).

Tevfik Arif, another associate of both Sater and Trump, has been linked to a scandal involving underaged prostitutes...
As for Arif, his most recent visible brush with the law came in 2010, when he and other members of Bayrock’s Eurasian Trio were arrested together in Turkey during a police raid on a suspected prostitution ring, according to the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot.

At the time, Turkish investigators reportedly asserted that Arif might be the head of a criminal organization that was trafficking in Russian and Ukrainian escorts, allegedly including some as young as 13.16 According to these assertions, big-ticket clients were making their selections by way of a modeling agency website, with Arif allegedly handling the logistics. Especially galling to Turkish authorities, the preferred venue was reportedly a yacht that had once belonged to the widely-revered Turkish leader Atatürk. It was also alleged that Arif may have also provided lodging for young women at Rixos Group hotels.17

According to Russian media, two senior Kazakh officials were also arrested during this incident, although the Turkish Foreign Ministry quickly dismissed this allegation as “groundless.” In the end, all the charges against Arif resulting from this incident were dismissed in 2012 by Turkish courts, and his spokespeople have subsequently denied all involvement.
While it is fairly easy to find online stories linking Sater to Mogilevich, there isn't much evidence online directly connecting Arif to Mogilevich. But the Sater/Arif partnership allows us to say that there isn't all that much daylight between the three men.

Arif is said to have used his "girls" to entrap and blackmail the powerful. Virginia Roberts has made a similar claim about Jeffrey Esptein.

On a completely unrelated note:
There is a certain personage in one of the Houses of Congress -- let us call him Durwood Ninny -- who has gained notoriety for his robustly pro-Trump attitude. Ninny isn't rich, but he does have some money, most of which he invested in a small-ish enterprise in his home state. Nothing wrong there. For a brief period, some observers worried that this enterprise did business in Russia, but those concerns were overblown and silly.

However: A former employee of that business claimed in a little-noticed lawsuit that the business once held a party for unnamed "bigwigs" on a boat, and that this party included prostitutes, and that at least one of these prostitutes appeared to be underaged. I have no information indicating that Durwood Ninny attended this party or had any knowledge of it.

Just thought I'd mention it.

On another completely unrelated note: I am sure you recall the harassment allegation levelled against George Takei, whose witty tweets have often skewered Trump. This Kos writer offers a persuasive argument against the veracity of this particular harassment claim. Nota bene:
Because some readers are having trouble believing that there could be Russian involvement in this allegation, here is an illustration. It is from the Russian intelligence Twitter monitoring site Hamilton 68. Visit and read their “about” page to learn how they work.

Here is the graph on bot activity in the past 48 hours at 4:35 pm Eastern time today.


I've caught some flack for warning readers that some "harassment" claimants -- not all, not most, but some -- may have hidden motivations.

I continue to predict that we will soon see a spectacular new claim against Bill Clinton, and that this claim will probably will have some connection to the Epstein matter. I further predict that this claim will probably involve a Russian woman, who will say that she had sex with Clinton when she was underaged. The story may be backstopped with seemingly-convincing evidence. The resultant bipartisan orgy of Clinton-hate will make the Trump/Russia scandal disappear from the national consciousness.

That's my forecast. I hope I'm wrong.
Permalink
Comments:
An obvious reaction to any new sexual revelations about dumb is to treat it like meh. The real scandals which are affecting everyone everywhere are happening all the time in front of our eyes. That's what should be in the news and every citizen's mind all the time. His sexual activities, weight,hair or anything else not so much. That's how we take the weapons from the enemies who want to distract us.
 
I notice the graph of tweets posted by alleged Russian bots almost always follows the graph of tweet trends in general. Everyone wants to follow the trends, you know.

Paying for intelligence is an old tactic, but then so is lying to manipulate your own government and populace. And, for that matter, 20 Committee type antics.
 
This is the winery lawsuit. Very unsavory business, IMHO.
https://www.winebusiness.com/news/?go=getArticle&dataid=176634
 
Employing teens is common practice in the food service industry, before Trump latched on to using H2B visa help, Mar a lago management could have hired locally. Usually the requirements are a high school issued minor work permit and a driver's license to get to there. They would usually bus tables or work with the grounds keeper.
As to the promoting of evidence about lurid Trump activities only to expose it as false to discredit all of his accusers I thought that about one of your favorite groups, the Truthers. What better way to dissuade the public form realizing that Bush the Lesser was less than diligent in any efforts to thwart the planned 911 attacks?
 
After the revelation that Trump was offered the services of hookers during his visit, why haven't any of the news media outlets polled US corporate representatives that went to Moscow if it's a common practice?
Are Russians smart enough to only make the offer to those that might avail themselves of hookers?
 
Many interesting tidbits here, Joseph. Thanks.

The Republican efforts to boost HRC as the best, most responsible candidate in 2008 was very striking to me. At the time,I suspected that the GOP had some sort of huge and toxic "revelation" regarding Bill Clinton. I had expected that shoe to drop during 2016.
 
Like you, I am also quite skeptical of Schindler. However, I don't think he is "deza" or a Republican troll. I just think he is a strong conservative who is genuinely upset that Trump is a Russian agent but has an extremely arrogant personality. So he always thinks he's smarter than everyone else, grossly oversells whatever inside access or expertise he has, and somehow finds a way to blame Democrats (especially women) for everything. I think this also describes Louise Mensch, though to be fair, Schindler is more credible than Mensch. So I do believe that there is a legit Trump tape and probably a fake to discredit the real one. But I doubt there are multiple legit tapes more salacious than something like the Steele dossier describes or fakes so good that intel agencies can't determine which ones are authentic. Just seem like Schindler, as people of his personality type do (we've all met them), is just inflating his self importance.

Case in point, if you ever read his takes on Hillary's email scandal as it happened, his wingnut bias and Clinton Derangement Syndrome shine bright. But what's best about it is in one of his final columns about it after Comey's press conference in which he lays out ONCE AND FOR ALL that Hillary committed one of the grossest acts of negligence in the history of US intelligence, he offhandedly admits that the State Department systems were just vulnerable as the private email server. Kinda sums up every Clinton scandal.
 
Small point of correction- John Gittinger was not a psychiatrist, nor even a psychologist though he was head administrator of a mental hospital before his work with the CIA. He was commonly referred to as "Dr.", but it was a honorary doctorate from a small college in Oklahoma. It was something of the wild west in psychology back in those days.
 
Lenny, you're right. I'll probably have to rephrase that paragraph. Mangold's bio of Angleton refers to Gittinger as the CIA's chief psychologist. Since Gittinger also administered drugs, I presumed that he must have been a full-fledged psychiatrist.

Wow. It really WAS the wild west then!

Also, on re-reading Mangold, I see that Gittinger did not actually call Angleton nuts, although he strongly implied that Philby's betrayal sent Angelton around the bend. Gittinger DID call Golitsyn a "megalomaniac." It really does seem that Angleton and Golitsyn got caught up in their own weird, paranoid little world in which everyone they didn't like became a Soviet agent. I believe that "folie a deux" is the term often used.

At any rate, Gittinger offered the closest thing we have to a professional assessment of JJA's basic sanity, and the report is troubling.
 
Also, sorry if too off-topic but it's about our favorite, St. Bernie. This Twitter thread hypothesizes that Brazile's book tour and Bernie's messaging around last week's election were a coordinated effort to exploit the anticipation that the Dems were gonna lose. Putting all the facts together, it's incredibly obvious.

https://twitter.com/josecanyousee/status/929176021131300864

Bernie Sanders. Not only is he harming the Democratic Party, he is actively trying to profit off of its decline. It's like a scummy hedge fund manager shorting a company and then actively trying to sabotage it. What more is there to say about him? I no longer take anyone seriously if they still think Bernie isn't anything more than an obstacle (though IMO, a rapidly deteriorating one) to Democrats.

 
"Employing teens is common practice in the food service industry, before Trump latched on to using H2B visa help, Mar a lago management could have hired locally. Usually the requirements are a high school issued minor work permit and a driver's license to get to there. They would usually bus tables or work with the grounds keepe"

Hey, I used to be a busboy myself in high school. But asking a 15 year-old girl to give a MASSAGE? Ew.

We have a president who employed a 15 year-old girl who was asked to massage a customer. Think about that. If any Dem had such an item on his resume...
 


Joe, have you already forgotten all about Curveball?

Yes, spies pay for information. The people they pay are usually disreputable and willing to provide fact or fiction for the same price. In fact, fiction is easier to come by than fact and spies are quite willing to pay for fiction when it bolsters the propaganda narrative they are pushing.

The Clinton Campaign paid Perkin Coie, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid ex-spy Christopher Steele, who paid someone in Russia to manufacture the dirt. Without the faux Russian provenance the whole Steele dossier would be incredible fiction.


 
Anon, creeps like you think you're going to win the argument by repeating lies until you tire us out. There is nothing "faux" about the Russia connection. So far, nothing in the dossier has been disproven and a surprising amount has checked out. Even Carter Page inadvertently conformed a section.

And why the hell would Steele pay someone to manufacture dirt? You've never done opp research. I have, in my own small way. Oppo research has no value unless it is TRUE. Opposition research is not a smear.

So your argument is that Hillary Clinton paid Russians for lies? If she was interested in lies, why pay? Why talk to Russians? Why not sit around the office and just make up lies? And if she was willing to pay for lies, why would she decide never to use them during the campaign?

And why would Steele be so fucking terrified by what he discovered that he took everything he had and went directly to the FBI, telling them "check this out"? He didn't put it on the internet. He didn't go public. He did the responsible thing and privately took his concerns to the Bureau, which is precisely the right thing to do. That's the way you act when you've uncovered something you genuinely consider worrisome.

A former MI6 agent isn't going to hand a collection of baseless smears to the FBI. Especially not if he wants to preserve your reputation. For a man in Steele's profession, rep is all.

What's truly appalling to me is that your nutball scenario apparently makes sense to you. You rightwing assholes are SICK. Your diseased minds keep coming up with insane scenarios -- and you fucking BELIEVE them.
 
Joseph, maybe "our friend" anon, sick fuck that he is, has provided the road map of how the right wing will procede from now on. All they have is primitive thought processes, dishonesty, and thugism.

They sure don't bother with oppo research. They knew they couldn't find any real "dirt on Hillary", so they recycle some stuff thst even Ken Starr couldn't find any factual use for, and cooked some innuendo to sell to the rubes by mis-labeling it as "red meat." Clearly, they have moved into a nihilism that is very destructive. They repeat the mantra "dirt on Hillary," and they're still doing it a year after the election.

The other side of the system demonstrates that this is not any ordinary equation. Because no amount of dirt is enough to damage a Republican. I almost contend that if Harvey Weinstein were not a liberal Democrat, that he would still be carrying on his bloated coke snorting sex-abuse-addicted ways. Look at friggin J. Epstein.

As we note our slide into fake democracy, we can recall signal events along the way.

Steele was a chump to send that dossier only to the Bureau. He should have openly cc'ed every reputable news organization in the country. But not many people knew how deep down the fascist hole the FBI is. Admittedly, I don't know, but have long had suspicions. Comey sat on it and kneecapped HRC's campaign with Wiener.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Saturday, November 11, 2017

You're gonna hate this, but I'm right

This is getting out of hand.

Yesterday, I read a story in which a man accused George Takei of sexual abuse. I admit that I didn't read the whole piece -- it got a little too redolent of gay porn -- but what I did read seemed open to more than one interpretation. Frankly, it looked like a simple case of misunderstood signals. The man in question was not underaged at the time of the encounter; there is no allegation of rape or of a threat against a career.

Look: This whole "mating dance" business can be icky and squicky, which is why I'm glad to be beyond all of that. It's a dance which relies on subtle cues and easily-misread body language. It's also -- let's be honest -- a contest in which fortune favors the bold, and men learn early on that he who can't muster up some boldness may enter his forties with virginity intact. That's a lesson we (presuming "we" to be hetero) learn FROM WOMEN, not from other men, though women invariably tell themselves and others that they teach no such lesson. Everyone knows that the bad boy gets laid and the sweet nerd spends his Saturday nights reading books and playing computer games. If women truly want men to be sweet and polite, then they should fuck men like that. Otherwise, stop bullshitting everyone. (And I say that as a basically shy fellow who got so sick of pretending to be someone I'm not that I often preferred to spend my Saturday nights in Barnes & Noble or conquering another level of Doom.) Women must also understand that if they continue to fuck bad boys, they increase the chances that some boys will take badness too far. On some level, I think, women do understand that.

No, I'm not justifying threats, force, ruhypnol, workplace harassment, the use of demeaning terms, the seduction of teens or "advertising one's shortcomings," as Louis C.K. did. All of that is obviously beyond the pale. But some of the current horror stories we've been hearing have nothing to do with workplace harassment or cognate sins. We're now hearing "Tales from date night" -- and at that point, I run out of sympathy.

On date night, there is no longer a hard-and-fast line separating acceptable boldness from non-acceptable. I know what you're about to say: "Yes, there is a line. No means no. That's the line." Uh-uh. That should be the line and that used to be the line, back when the rules were simple and clear. Unfortunately, in recent times, we've moved the line and applied a Gaussian blur.

Nowadays, a Bold One can be considered a rapey beast even if the female does not say No. Guys are supposed to read minds; we're supposed to back off when a woman thinks No. How dare our culture require women to say words that aren't easy to say? In some of these online "date night horror stories," we're supposed to sympathize with a female who freezes and feels confused and doesn't know how to respond to unwanted advances. At this point in the story, we usually get a hyperlink to a psychological study in which an Important Expert assures us that a "deer in the headlights" reaction is natural and expected, which means that a woman need no longer feel any responsibility to make her feelings known. And why should she? We live in a world in which all men are Penismonsters and everything is always their fault. How convenient!

God, I'm glad to be this age. Dating was tough enough a couple of decades ago; it must be hell now. Fortunately, there are still a few operational Barnes & Nobles, and emulators allow modern computers to fire up Doom.

Added note. As long as I'm pissing off everyone, I might as well mention something that has long bothered me about Fox News. The grisly revelations concerning Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes should surprise no-one, since the corporate culture of Fox should be apparent after an hour's watch. All the men on screen are aging blowhards -- and all the women go before the cameras dressed for a date, not for the office. Lots of cleavage, lots of thigh. The recent scandals have confirmed something that we've always suspected -- that these women were directed from on high to dress that way.

Vile? Of course. And I agree that most of the blame goes to the men at the top of the corporate hierarchy who advised women appearing on camera to sluttify their wardrobes. But let's be honest: Shouldn't a female television personality show a little more self-respect and a little more defiance? Shouldn't she say: "No, I will not dress that way"? If you have to debase yourself on national television in order to keep your job, don't keep that job. Quit. And write a tell-all book or article.
Permalink
Comments:
The expression was," Charmed her panties off". Apparently Bill Clinton had it.
Unlike returning that toaster the sales clerk's blandishments caused you to buy you can't regain your chastity once given. Some take their buyer's remorse out on the other person with accusations of harassment or assault. Best thing to do is not date until you need stiffy pills to get anything accomplished. Or if you must limit contact to a handshake at the end of the night.
 
Totally agree with you. While some cases are obviously true (Weinstein, Spacey, Louis CK) some others are quite suspect. One actress accused George Clooney of black balling her on the set of ER, rape by an unnamed producer and the rest of the cast was racist toward her. Right. Likewise accusations against Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dryfuss, George Takei and especially Charlie Sheen. These cases are all either really slight in their definition of sexual assault or they didn't happen at all. Sheen is being accused by hearsay that has been refuted by Corey Haim's Mom, as he died years back. Welcome to the new Witch Hunt of Salem. Why can't people STOP LYING about stuff that didn't happen that waters down the allegations of those that truly suffered?
 
Louis CK seems to have always asked permission before masturbating in front of people, although he's accused by an ex of noisily masturbating in his private sleeping area on a tour bus after they split up. To me, asking people if you can masturbate in front of them isn't in the same league as forcibly putting your hand up someone, a la Weinstein.
 
I hate to interrupt the tender manfest here, but the last thread's intense concern for little j's assertion that HE was arbiter of when women are to be believed sickened me to the point last night I had a nightmare that Big J had a young son who died, and I hope that dream son was not a metaphor for this blog, because, sorry, Joseph, you are squarely on the wrong side of a historic change. And to quote and echo Uma Thurman, "when I am less angry, I will speak." Including finally calling out a maddeningly regular grammatical error that hopefully will curb Joseph's false sense of always being right.
 
I'm sorry, re my dream metaphor
I did not mean your blog would die, obviously my dream's metaphors are language to me. I meant I hope it does not mean the blog would be dead to me. The you are on the wrong side of history, on the other hand, is not my opinion. Just wanted to clarify.
 
Joseph,
I agree with you!
And I am a woman who has experienced sexual harrassment on more than one occasion. Sexual harrassment is real and happens way too often, but every sexual advance is not equal to sexual harrassment.
Sexual harrassment is about power not sex and mating.
As for Fox News women, they should know that the idea behind Fox News is to promote a certain culture. The culture of conservatism and the legitimacy of power in the hands of White, male and mostly Christian men.Looking slutty on TV is just one part of agreeing to be part of promoting that culture. A similar culture is promoted in many religious organizations. Looking slutty but acting chaste has long been accepted as normal in these circles .
M
 
Sickening. Enjoy your new circle. Oo. Wow, A woman who has experienced hatassment but wants to pile on slutty women. Stop the presses. You are surrounded by the arbiters of everything. Heil arbiters!
 
Why point fingers at Sanders Brogressuves? How is this community any better?
 
It seems to me that those young ladies in their revealing outfits on Faux News, while displaying their subjective enjoyment of such physical attributes which can draw a certain sort of male gaze, are not good faith agents in the human adventure. They are paid a lot, but much less I'm sure than the foul smelling (there can be no doubt that Bill O'Reilly smells like the crotch of a no longer fresh corpse) man seated next to them, to be on TV. Their employer's puropse being to sugar coat Rupert and Roger's odious fascist brain washing enterprise, to reinforce white male privilege, transmissible by the magic of that privilege even to trailer park dwellers.

A notable case in point was a broadcast mafe by the to appearances classy Meghan Kelly, who carried on about how Black Lives Matter members want to kill "cracker babies."

Pointing a suitable, disrespectful finger at such persons is only good sense because the targets make themselves at best ridiculous, though in the heat of a political discussion such raillery may take on satirical terminology that bears the mark of their employer, and is not meant to attach to their more general membership in their gender.

At least that's my reading of this rivulet amongst deep and turbulent waters.

If any names have been misspelled by me in this comment it's because they are all greatly trivial and not worth the time to check.

Oh, in re: international politics etc, Schindler writes that spies tell him that the Russians will be floating a bunch of fake Trump sex tapes. How'd we know to distrust Mr. XX? It seems that parts of the Fascist Aliance have decided to work to keep the destructive Trump in place.

I have been reading Jane Austen with great pleasure lately and will now return to those deep and scintillating pages.


 
No one here is defending sexual harrassment or for that matter, sexual abuse in any form or blaming any woman, slutty or not.
I am agreeing that there are women who lie about this, who mistake a sexual advance with harrassment or abuse, who knowingly or un knowingly promote cultures that at heart believe in mastery of male over female which tacitly allows men to behave badly,
Do you not agree?
M
 
I am baffled by your anger.
Are you saying that no woman has ever lied or misunderstood sexual advance with sexual harrassment or abuse?

 
Oh noooooes - you did NOT just tell all women to "just quit" their jobs if they are being harassed. ???
 
Where did I say that? I wish people would stop reading things between the lines.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Thursday, November 09, 2017

Exclusive! For the first time anywhere! A photo of "Putin's niece" -- MAYBE.

Olga Vinogradova.

According to Politico, that's the name of the woman (incorrectly) labeled "Putin's niece" in the emails of George Papadopoulos, the former Trump advisor who pleaded guilty to making false statements. Allegedly, she was supposed to broker meetings between the Trump campaign and important Russians; Papadopoulos' contact, Josef Mifsud (an academic who has mysteriously disappeared in recent days), came under the impression that she was related to Putin, even though she isn't.
Papadopoulos's emails do not make immediately clear who Vinogradova — who could have been using an alias — worked for, where she lived, or her connection to Mifsud, POLITICO learned from one source. The surname is fairly common in Russia, and POLITICO could not independently determine who Vinogradova is.
Mifsud did not respond to requests for comment. But in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica last week, he referred to Vinogradova as "just a student, a very good-looking one." Papadopoulos's interest in her, Mifsud said, was "very different from an academic one."
Based on these clues, I have a suspect.

I'm not sure that this is THE Olga Vinogradova, but she is definitely an Olga Vinogradova. She's a real estate lawyer in New York City; the image above comes from her Yelp page. According to her webpage, one of her specialties is "mechanics' liens." Convenient! I understand that more than a few people who've dealt with Trump could use the services of such a lawyer.

Is she "good looking"? I would say so.

Since Papadopoulos apparently had a romantic interest in her (that's pretty much the only way to interpret Mifsud's statement), it seems likely that we're looking for an Olga Vinogradova who was born in Russia but moved to America. We also know that we're looking for an Olga who was a "student" not long ago. In other words, the Olga we're looking for went to college to pursue a professional degree.

Now go this Russian-language social media site.



Looks like the same woman to me. The site says that she was born in February of 1981. Most of her friends seem to be Russian, though there are pictures of her on what appears to be the east coast of the U.S.

I have not found a photo of Georgie-poo on her page, so I can't yet be certain that we have the right Olga. But so far, all the signs look promising.

HOWEVER: If my tentative identification is incorrect, I offer my sincere apologies to the lawyer in NYC. At no point in this post have I claimed that this woman has done anything illegal, unethical, questionable or in any way unusual. All I've said about her is that I consider her "good looking."
Permalink
Comments:
To me, the lawyer in NYC does not look like the woman pictured below in the two FB photos. It's hard to tell if even those photos are of the same woman.
 
The photos aren't FB but a Russian version thereof. The social media site identifies THAT Olga as living in NYC. So how many blondes of that name and age range can be living in New York?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Haven't had enough scandal yet? Here's Moore

In the preceding post, I said that Roy Moore was definitely going to win the Alabama race. Perhaps I spoke too soon. The WP says that in 1979, when Moore was an Assistant DA, he made advances on a 14 year-old girl named Leigh Corfman, whom he met when she was waiting outside a courtroom.
Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

“I wanted it over with — I wanted out,” she remembers thinking. “Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.” Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did.

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.
Realistically speaking, the Post is not going to concoct a story like this out of thin air, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a rube. There are libel laws. If the WP knowingly published a phony story in order to harm Moore's electoral chances, the result would be a massive lawsuit -- one which could destroy the Post.

On the other hand, I can easily visualize a situation in which Republican ratfuckers try to con a WP writer (or in this case, three Post writers) into accepting a false tale.

That doesn't seem to be what's happening in this instance, because the writers have named their source. It isn't difficult to find online evidence that a 53 year-old woman named Leigh Corfman once lived in Gadsden, Alabama, just as the story states. (I imagine that she's receiving a great deal of harassment right now; her bravery is admirable.)

Moore has responded to the charges by denying them and sending out a fundraising flier. Surprised? I'm not. And I won't be surprised if he ekes out a win. Earlier today, I read that Trump supporters sincerely believe that Trump attracted an inaugural crowd larger than Obama's -- and that they maintain this belief even when looking at the photos.

Naturally, the Breitbarters are implying (but not explictly stating) that the WP -- which they insist on calling "Bezo's Washington Post" -- is peddling fake news. Speaking with MSNBC's Ali Velshi, Breitbart’s Joel Pollak offered a defense that would he hilarious if the situation weren't so repellent...
POLLAK: Well, you said yourself at the start of the segment he's being accused of relationships with teenagers. To me that's not accurate. In fact, it's following in a narrative that the Post tried to set up--

VELSHI: But, it is. It is teenagers. It's a 14-year old, a 16-year old, and I think two 18-year olds. They're teenagers.

POLLAK: The 16-year old and the 18-year old have no business in that story, because those are women of legal age of consent at the time.

[...]

My point is that the Post has successfully put a narrative out, at least on MSNBC and in other places, that there's this pattern of teenagers. There's really, as far as know, the facts could come out differently but as far as we know, there's only one relationship that's been alleged that's problematic.
Only one? Moore presents himself as the Ultimate Christian Warrior. That's his image. That's his shtick. He feels perfectly free to pass judgment on the way other men and women choose to have sex. Now as it happens, I am far less judgmental than Moore about sexual matters: Whatever two adults do in privacy is none of my business, even if they choose to do something freaky and extreme. And yet, libertine and scoundrel that I am, even I feel squicked out by the idea of a 32 year-old "Christian" man trying to have sex (outside of marriage) with a 16 year-old girl.

Is such a match-up legal in Alabama? Apparently so. But it's still fair to use Moore's history with those young women as a basis for judging whether or not he should sit in the United States Senate.

At any rate, Leigh was 14 at the time. Pollak can dance and dance, but he cannot dance that fact away.

Let me repeat: Moore has called the WP's story false. If it is, in fact, true, then Moore is guilty of bearing false witness -- an amusing irony, since it involves a man who wants the Ten Commandments displayed in public.

Even though Moore denies the story, his defenders seem to accept its basic truthfulness. They just don't think that it amounts to a disqualifying charge. If no actual intercourse occurred (they argue), then Corfman has no basis for complaint. Of course, Republicans sneered when Bill Clinton said that fellatio was not sex.

Never let it be said that Republicans don't have standards. They love standards so much that they keep their supply doubled.

If Moore loses the race, will his loss count as a mark against Trumpism? No. Trump did not endorse Moore in the primary. We cannot draw any larger conclusions from the results of this race.

Toronto Star writer Daniel Dale has offered a truly unnerving series of tweets:
Alabama Covington County GOP Chairman William Blocker tells me Democrats convinced these women to tell a fake story to damage Moore. I told him the 14-year-old became a Trump voter. "That's the typical background or profile of somebody they would be using for that," he said. "If they said she was a Hillary supporter, then she'd be more dismissed by the local voters here in the state of Alabama. You'd have to paint her as a Trump supporter to be of any credibility," Covington County GOP Chairman William Blocker says.
Many of our fellow Americans live in a world in which all Dems are considered so evil, so scheming, so demonic, so inherently conspiratorial, that nothing they say should ever be considered credible. That's the level of brainwashing in places like Alabama.

What's more, many Alabamans think that Moore should be elected even if he did grope a 14 year-old.
"Yeah!" Covington County GOP Chairman William Blocker tells me he'd consider voting Moore even if hard proof of sexual abuse emerged. "There is NO option to support to support Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee. When you do that, you are supporting the entire Democrat party."
Tally from my calls to Alabama GOP county chairs: 4 vehemently pro-Moore, 3 no comment/"haven't read the story yet," 15 I couldn't reach, 0 criticism of Moore.
One of Dale's readers has tweeted: "My eyes are bleeding from reading this thread." That reader's eyes will probably gush like the elevators in The Shining when Moore wins. I'm betting he will.

Why am I betting that way? Look at what Alabama state auditor Jim Ziegler has to say:
Asked whether or not the report would upend Moore’s campaign, Ziegler predicted that Alabama voters would be angrier at the Washington Post for “desperately trying to get something negative” than Moore for his dalliances with teenage girls decades ago.

“He’s clean as a hound’s tooth,” Ziegler claimed, before relying on Scripture to defend Moore.

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said choosing his words carefully before invoking Christ. “Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”

“There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here,” Ziegler concluded. “Maybe just a little bit unusual.”
So. You think St. Joseph got to second base on the way to Bethlehem? You think he guided the Blessed Virgin's hand toward his crotch? If he had, his actions wouldn't have been "immoral," according to Ziegler.

And people wonder why I'm so cynical.
Permalink
Comments:
My bet is with yours.
 
Anyone who doesn't think Moore is still a strong favorite probably also thinks Dems would sweep every election if they only offered "true" progressives. I was with you yesterday in that Jones had no shot (but I still thought Dems should compete because a close race in Alabama would strike fear into Republicans and energize Dems). But now? He's got an outside chance. This is a perfect storm for a Democrat to win in Alabama which is more insane than Trump winning the WH. And I know I'm getting too far ahead, but if Dems win this race they can probably take the Senate in 2018.
 
I am a bit leery of Corfman's allegations. But the real interesting part of the WP article is that Moore claims that after he lost the election for circuit judge, he went to Texas to study kickboxing and then spent a year in an Australian cattle ranch. Does that make sense to anybody? A lawyer loses an election and then decides to study kickboxing and cattle ranching? From Alabama to Texas and Australia? Something is just really strange here.
 
joseph, I am of course willing to hear out Moore's side of the story. But his defenders seem to be stipulating that the WP article is basically true, which is hard to square with Moore's flat denial.

Now that you mention it, it seems odd that anyone would feel a need to move OUT of Texas to learn cattle ranching.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Get real. Plus: A (fictional) second dossier

Dems won big in VA and now they're crowing like Peter Pan. Fine. They deserve to smile and strut and boast a bit. But let's be realistic: A win in purple Virginia won't necessarily translate into a win in a red state.

Take, for example, the senatorial race in Alabama, now tied at 42/42 according to a Fox News poll. Is it possible for Democrat Doug Jones to eke out a victory over notorious nutball Roy Moore?

If only. This poll by a firm based in Mobile gives Moore an 11 point lead. Other polls put his lead between four and seven points.

Beyond that, we need to confront one basic fact: Virginia votes with paper ballots. Results in that state will not mirror results elsewhere.

Alabama also uses optical scan paper ballots, but they are counted by tabulating machines.
Davenport said after the polls close the machine generates a tape of the results, a list of all the write-in candidates from the electronic scans, and its thumb drive is removed. The thumb drive is uploaded into the central tabulation machine at the probate office.
The paper ballots are kept under lock and key for 22 months, which theoretically means that they can be double-checked. No law requires that the process be audited. A recount will take place only if the margin is less than one-half of one percent -- and any recounts will be tabulated, once again, by machine.

That Fox News poll may bait Dems into wasting money on an unwinnable race.

He's at it again. Remember Ed Klein, writer of political fiction? We've dealt with him before: See here and here. Now he claims that Hillary Clinton is paying Chris Steele big bucks (or pounds) for a second dossier.
The second dossier will allegedly contain evidence that Trump had 'romantic involvements with Russian women' connected to the Kremlin's spy apparatus

The original Russian dossier has been discredited
No it hasn't. Ed Klein has been discredited.

The credibility of the first (and only) dossier has actually been buttressed by recent events: The testimony of Carter Page inadvertently confirmed the document's most important claim (concerning the sale of Rosneft shares), while the revelation that Paul Manafort had three passports undermines the claim proffered by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. To the best of my knowledge, Cohen's passport was the only hard evidence ever presented to counter an assertion of fact made in the dossier.

The idea that Ed Klein -- and no other reporter -- would gain exclusive knowledge of this alleged "second dossier" is hilarious. Trump has dined with Klein and seems to like him just fine. Trump also claims that reporters should eschew unsourced allegations, even though anonymous sourcing is a huge part of Klein's shtick. His books contain lengthy "quotations" of highly dubious dialogue, dialogue that sounds like nothing that any human being would actually say, supposedly recorded word-for-word even though the only people present are unlikely to speak to someone like Klein.

Klein has even pretended to quote Barack Obama speaking to his wife when nobody else was in the room. Inanities like that are the reason why many conservatives -- even Bill O'Reilly! -- wouldn't touch Klein with a ten foot pole.

Jim Newell once called Klein the "king of hacks":
Anyone can do what Ed Klein does. You just take a tiny sliver of news about Hillary Clinton and then come up with the most stilted and obvious imaginable dialogue between two wooden planks that happens to confirm the worst of suspicions about her character in a direct, efficient manner.
You should also check out this Vox piece on Klein's Blood Feud.
Klein is infamous for writing books with salacious details about the Clintons and Obamas, filled with what purport to be direct quotes of the couples spilling their true thoughts in private. These quotes are always attributed to anonymous sources who just happen to be present at the time. They generally portray the politicians in a very unflattering light. And it's difficult to find anyone in DC who believes they happened.
Significantly, despite Klein's portrayal of the Clintons as incredibly indiscreet — "A lot of Klein's revelations come from other characters confessing their deepest thoughts to people they haven't seen in a while," writes Marc Ambinder — somehow no other reporter in the country has managed to confirm Klein's reporting, or get accounts of quotes anywhere near as salacious as the ones he prints.
Klein's more attention-getting claims, though, are made via anonymous sources and concern private conversations and matters — and are therefore impossible to conclusively debunk. "Like clever high school students, many of Klein's claims are almost deliberately uncheckable," Marc Ambinder writes. He adds, "Who is going to know exactly whether Barack and Michelle Obama sleep in separate beds beyond maybe three other people in the universe?"
Only Klein knows for certain whether humans actually said these quotes to him, but they seem to describe a political world that exists only in some conservative fever dream.
Permalink
Comments:
I've posted this link to a Daily Kos write-up "Anatomy of a Stolen Election" before: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/10/1/392528/-

It describes how the 2007 re-election of Don Siegelman in Alabama was stolen. But that won't be necessary in the Doug Jones/Roy Moore special election. Moore will win hands down, as would his horse if that's all the GOP could find to stand for election. The GOP control of Alabama politics is ironclad and will be for the foreseeable future because of the way the political machine is structured, including the state's outdated, outmoded racially biased constitution. To change that will have to come from inside the state. No amount of money or influence from any outside organization will impact that fact, in my opinion. However, the support of Moore has less to do with his ultraconservative views and more to do with that he has stood up for what his believes to the point of losing his job twice. Standing up for what you believe to that degree means much to southerners--something progressives should keep in mind. Backing down from what you believe is viewed as weakness. Of course it's a lot easier to do that if your mind is relatively closed in the first place, rather than open to different ways of thinking.

 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Wednesday, November 08, 2017

Kevin Spacey, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein

The Kevin Spacey stories may have political ramifications.

As you know, Spacey accompanied Bill Clinton on a trip aboard Jeffrey Epstein's jet to an AIDS conference in Africa. Keep that fact in mind as you consider the following.

During the campaign, a fake story circulated (even on Vox!) that Virginia Roberts -- the Epstein victim who brought suit against Alan Dershowitz -- had sex with Clinton on Epstein's island. I trace the origin of that story here. Bottom line: In her deposition, Roberts said precisely the opposite, and she has not changed her statement in subsequent interviews.

If you want a queasy feeling in your stomach, consider these two points:

1. Trump obviously plans to "run against the Clintons" for the rest of his presidency. Inchoate Clinton-hate is THE force binding together the Republican party right now. Not tax reform: Only the elites care about that. Average working-class Republicans care primarily about Lock Her Up. If Hillary Clinton did not exist, support for Trump would dwindle.

2. At any time, any eastern European girl formerly in Epstein's entourage can slam the media with an "I fucked Bill while I was still a kid" story. A guy who launders money for Russian oligarchs (and please note that I did not accuse Epstein of being that guy) could easily pay such a girl ten million dollars. Or more.

(Would Virginia tell lies for that kind of money? I don't think so, but it's not as though I know the woman.)

Clinton's witness on that plane trip was Kevin Spacey. Not too long ago, his testimony would have carried weight. Now, nobody will accept anything he has to say.

The Weinstein case, along with all the other suddenly-prominent charges of celebrity sexual abuse, has given feminists a chance to hammer home their usual message:

Women never lie. Women are pure. Women are incorruptible. Women must always be believed. You must never question women. You must accept everything a woman says at face value without looking into her background and without asking for further evidence.

That message is, of course, bullshit. Women and men are equally likely to lie. (Some evidence suggests that men are actually a bit more truthful, at least about small matters.) If a great deal of money is involved, women and men are equally corruptible.

(There's also the "crazy factor." It has been said that one out of eight human beings will go nuts at some point, and I've seen no evidence that the ratio differs between females and males. That's why police must investigate the credibility of a woman who cries rape. How else can you determine whether or not she is Woman Number 8?)

Bottom line: I think we're being set up. Slowly but surely. Chess pieces are being put into position for a big play that could happen ten moves down the line.

Heretofore, one factor has impeded the Trumpists from playing the Epstein card (despite hints that such a play was under consideration): There's a hell of a lot more evidence connecting Trump to Epstein than has ever linked Clinton to Epstein. But desperate times call for desperate measures. The time may soon come when the Trumpers will play that card.
Permalink
Comments:
Filtering out from Komrad Murdoch UK News media East to West in the tabloids : Charlie Sheene joins the "I raped a 13 year old in the 70s/80s" Club
 
"Bottom line: I think we're being set up. Slowly but surely. Chess pieces are being put into position for a big play that could happen ten moves down the line.

Heretofore, one factor has impeded the Trumpists from playing the Epstein card (despite hints that such a play was under consideration): There's a hell of a lot more evidence connecting Trump to Epstein than has ever linked Clinton to Epstein. But desperate times call for desperate measures. The time may soon come when the Trumpers will play that card."

EXACTLY! THANK YOU! If Trumpers pull the Epstein card then stop being a bunch ninnies, TAKE IT BACK and knock their lights out with it!

IT'S MUELLER TIME MUTHAFUCKAS!
 
Filtering out from Komrad Murdoch UK News media East to West today in the tabloids : Charlie Sheene joins the "I raped a 13 year old in the 70s/80s" Club

UK DailyMail (original gangster Nazi sympathizers) tabloid and Oligarch pal Komrad Rupert Murdoch's tabloids are all over Charlie Sheen's case like stink on shit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5062721/Charlie-Sheen-sodomized-Corey-Haim-13-set-Lucas.html

UK paparazzi apparently staking out Charlie Sheen's home in the hopes he might pull a 13 year old out of pocket thinking no one is watching.






 
We have a funny little mascot here, but yeah. You may be right, Joseph, that Bill Clinton is being set up, but DT lives in that glass house.

And you have a typo in your headline.

I think you may be a little overwrought, Joseph. Your women are pure and never lie spiel is the flip side of the same coin that general pulled out.

In fact, the opposite. Women are arguing they have a right to own and flaunt their sexuality. Thus, the Slut Walks. We have a right to be impure and not be coerced.

I came of age in tbe 70s and understand that 13 and 14 year olds felt very differently about sexuality back then. To us it was empowering. Of course, we were children. But there were plenty of us who spoke up to defend David Bowie after he died, including the young groupie who became a lifelong friend of his. Consent still matters.

Spacey is an abusive asshole. We can tell the difference.


 
Sorry about the typo.

I'm sorry, but my point still stands. Women are every bit as corruptible as men. And they are just as likely to Person Number 8.

The latter I know from experience. A woman would pretty much HAVE to be Number 8 to date a guy like me.
 
Dude, men are not only 9 times as violent offenders as women but the majority of women in jail are there because they killed the men who would've killed them. Facts. You would need to learn at least three names a day to honor the women killed every single day by their partners, let alone the kids and other "collateral" damage. A state trooper told me last week the reason cops show up when it's a domestic event: because someone. Will.get. killed. As you may or may not know in Bmore calling 911 gets you put on hold and cops do not come..unless you see a gun or it's a domestic assault.

Sorry I have no clue what 8 means. I am an old woman in my 50s. It's comical to think anyone dates women my age regardless of number. You are on a losing battle here, for no reason at all. Don't make me roll out my big grammatical cannons. Just ceasefire.

I agree with your gloomy gus prediction, but your same coin flip side as White House General "when women were pure" is a bum mint.
 
None of that disproves anything I said. The "8" reference is explained in my text.

So you're arguing that if one of Epstein's girls accuses Clinton she must be telling the truth? No other interpretation is possible?
 
There is no evidence Clinton is attracted to children or that he parties like that. He shared a plane. Also, whatever else Spacey did, he didn't lie when accused. Compare his responses to Weinstein's.
 
Anon, I didn't say Clinton was attracted to children!

This appears to have been another "reading comprehension test" post. The words you people think I wrote have no relationship to the words I actually wrote.
 
Speaking of being misunderstood...

"EXACTLY! THANK YOU! If Trumpers pull the Epstein card then stop being a bunch ninnies, TAKE IT BACK and knock their lights out with it!"

Inevitably, there will be an attempt to do just that. But the links between Trump and Epstein, though very real, are not damning, at least not based on the evidence available to us right now. (And my earlier article offers as full of compilation of that evidence as you'll find anywhere.)

But if one of Epstein's "paramours" from eastern Europe offers a false story about Bill Clinton -- THAT will overpower all other concerns. Her story will be almost impossible to counter, since nearly everyone on the left has been brainwashed into believing that All Females Are Incapable of Lying.
 
You know Joseph, even though I realize that personal experience does not translate into a universal truth, I agree with what you are suggesting here about women. In my experience, they have been just about as trustworthy as men, i.e., not very much. I've met some truly crazy women who easily outdid any men I've known in the area of pathological lying. Now, they could have become this way due to being mistreated by men in their lives when they were young, so it could still possibly come down to being the fault of a male somewhere along the line. Generally speaking though, I find that women are just as capable of lying (and generally more believed) than men. Again, just my personal experience so don't bother replying prowlerzee, because I already know about the facts of women being abused more than men, getting killed by men, etc., etc.

All I'm saying is that Joseph is right that the left has gone a bit too far in taking the word of women over men in the past couple decades. OF COURSE a lot of men lie and abuse women. That does not automatically mean every single woman should be taken at her word without any corroboration or evidence.
 
Gus, one of these days I'll tell you about a woman named Christa...

Every man should date a Christa. Every woman should have one lesbian affair with a Christa. Once the entire human race has received the Christa treatment, the entire human race will be cured of the delusion that All Women Are Always Honest.

That said, if one of Epstein's girls does tell a false "Clinton raped me" story, that girl won't be a Christa. Christa was a transcendental creature whose motivations had nothing to do with money.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Kidnapped. Plus: Sealed indictments?

Yes, Virginia: Democrat Ralph Northam won, and rather more handily than I would have thought possible. So why did I forecast a Gillespie victory ? Because I always predict that the person I don't like will win. In the grand casino of politics, you need a betting strategy, and my strategy is cynicism.

It's not a foolproof tactic, but it often works. I also predicted a Trump victory.

Flynn the abductor.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey is a reliable reactionary, so we were all a little stunned when, not long before the election, he suddenly decided to quit Team Trump. Eventually we learned the reason: Woolsey says that he witnessed Michael Flynn (Trump's former national security adviser) discuss the commission of a serious crime.

During election season, Flynn was not just a Trump adviser -- he also secretly functioned as an agent of Turkish government. He even published a rabidly pro-Erodgan editorial on election day.

The Turkish strongman fears and despises one man above all others: An exiled cleric named Fethullah Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania yet commands an impressive following in his homeland. The Gulen movement inspired a coup against Erdogan in July of 2016.

Erdogan wants Gulen extradited. Flynn's editorial supported that goal. But his support went further than that.

On September 19, 2016, Woolsey attended a meeting with Flynn. Woolsey says that he saw Flynn discuss a kidnapping.
Woolsey told the Journal that the idea was "a covert step in the dead of night to whisk this guy away."
"This guy" was, of course, Gulen. Flynn, through his lawyers, denies that any such plot was afoot.

(Does Woolsey have a motive for lying about such a thing? I strongly doubt it. I may not like Woolsey, but I can't see why he'd fib about this.)

Woolsey, we are told, was so bothered by what he heard that he quit the Trump effort and reported on the alleged kidnapping plot to none other than Joe Biden. If I understand the sequence of events correctly, Biden brought the matter to the attention of the FBI. Thus, my first question: Why haven't we heard confirmation directly from Biden?

Let's add a little moral complexity to this storyline:
Reuters, citing three people familiar with the matter, reported Thursday that Woolsey and his wife, Nancye Miller, pitched a $10 million contract to two Turkish businessmen to help discredit Gülen while Woolsey was an adviser to Donald Trump's election campaign.
Woolsey was fine with a smear campaign, but he drew the line at kidnapping. That's how right-wing politics work these days: Whitewaters are okay, but Dealey Plazas are out. 

We now know that Woolsey is working with Robert Mueller's investigation. We also know that Mueller thinks he has enough to file charges against Flynn. Many people think that Flynn has already been indicted. It seems fair to suggest that the alleged kidnapping plot will be mentioned in the indictment.

Here's my big question: Is Woolsey's testimony -- unsupported by other evidence -- sufficient for a conviction?

Imagine the tableau: A courtroom showdown in which a former CIA Director accuses a former DIA Director of plotting an abduction. It's cheesy, it's sleazy, and it'll make everyone uneasy. Yet such a thing is possible.

I have another big question. Are there "unpardonable" crimes in the Era of Trump? In preceding posts, I've repeatedly hammered home the point that Trump is shameless enough to pardon anyone of anything, if he sees no other to save his capacious hindquarters. It's pretty obvious that Manafort's lawyer is angling for the Big P. But there are three crimes which -- in my estimation -- are particularly difficult for Trump to pardon: Rape, kidnapping and murder. Even Paul Ryan might feel compelled to shout: "That's it. Show's over. We're ringing down the curtain."

So let's say the kidnapping charge falls into the "unpardonable" category. Will Flynn then cut a deal? Will he rat out Trump?

On a very related note:

Sealed indictments. Last night, the District of Columbia docket included twenty-one sealed indictments against a (presumably) smaller number of individuals. I don't know if Mueller is the one behind these indictments, but there are worse ways to bet.
Permalink
Comments:
Even Paul Ryan might feel compelled to shout: "That's it. Show's over.

Nice thought, but I simply don't see it. Ryan strikes me as an individual without a soul. Maybe if trump's polls fall into the low twenties, Ryan might panic but even that feels like a stretch.
 
Speaking of kidnapping...

"More unfortunate is that these incidents have had the unintended side effect of protecting Nugent from a far bigger character issue. In fact, in the case of Nugent, we have even come to see alleged child sexual abuse as some sort of eccentricity or harmless vice. Can you imagine anyone else who had been accused of having sex with a 12-year-old, written a song about raping a 13-year-old and adopted a 17-year-old so that he could have sex with her going on to campaign alongside all the most conservative “family values” candidates?"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/ted-nugents-jailbait-problem_b_4840060.html

Here's a New York Times article below from this year talking about Nugent visiting Trump in the White House but not mentioning claims Nugent raped underaged girls and therefore has no place standing next to the U.S. President. So a rocker who sings about raping 13 year olds and sharing the 13 year old with a cop, is standing next to a U.S. President accused of raping a 13 year old, and who is friends with a guy accused of raping 13,14,15 year olds(Epstein) and some how the media is talking about Dustin Hoffman putting his hand on the butt of a 17 year old 30 years ago? Why is that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/us/politics/sarah-palin-kid-rock-ted-nugent-white-house.html

Dustin Hoffman patted a 17 year old girl on the butt in the 70s/80s in a different age of awareness on things related to sexuality, age, gender....therefore I am destroying every movie and magazine right now that has his face in it? Plus I am destroying all movies with Rob Lowe, destroying my David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones collections because all those dudes had sex with 15, 16 and 17 year olds too. How old was that Maddox girl when they were passing her around? 14? Dolly Parton was once alleged to have done something similar. So all her shit in the trash. unredeemable. How many rockers through the 50s,60s, 70s were singing about 16 year old girls? ALOT OF THEM. All of it in the trash. Same for a lot of politicians, sports stars, etc. Many of them still alive, so is the media just taking its time to getting to destroying everyone of these people in turn for doing the same thing? Because this is going to be a massive takedown. No, not going to happen.

Maybe the New York Times and FBI soon to team up to expose to poor highly stressed out Americans watching all their institutions gettin wrecked, how all of those shitty drug lords running South American states allow sex with 13 year olds, in their countries, so the U.S. Media and FBI is going to call them out and bust these countries. Or go after the UK government for legally allowing sex with 16 year olds. So by USA standards all of UK is a nation of pedos. The whole entire United Kingdom. Or maybe go after Trumps BFF Russia for being CHILD ABUSSR WORLD CENTRAL HQ #1 if you believe all of the NGO reports. Trump Ex-Soviet state mobster buddies who traffic in drugs and underage girls. Or the businessmen being video taped with Eastern Euro underage girls at Epsteins New York and Florida Apartments? New York Times will bust it all open!

NOooo... NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.... What will happen is USA is going to keep chewing away at itself while the rest of the world gets a good laugh. Specifically the Left Coast is up for sacrifice by the U.S. establishment to show something is being done about the rampant mass Pedo outbreak in Hollywood and measures are being taken to contain that shit so it doesn't spread to more respectable sectors like New York and South Florida.

In Murica... You can send 16 year olds off to die and kill other children in a war you lied about, profit off it, go sell books on the New York Times best seller list about it... But GAWD HELP YOU IF YOUR HAND STRAYS AND TOUCHES THE BUTT OF A 17 YEAR OLD 30 YEARS AGO!!! The New York Times will jump your ass and wreck your shit like Donald Trump at a Jeffrey Epstein Underage Elite "Massage" Party!!!
 
I predicted a Gillespie win because with the tightening polls, I thought Donna Brazile was going to put him over the top just like Wikileaks and Comey did to Trump in 2016. But wow am I glad to be wrong! Democrats dominated everywhere.
 
Did Mueller hold off on making arrests so as not to be accused of throwing the election?
How far did Flynn go with the kidnapping idea for it to become a criminal conspiracy?
 
Teenage boys writing rock songs about teen-age girls is not pedophilia.
 
It's not nice to kidnap someone who is being protected by the CIA's Graham Fuller...
 
Mr. Mike: I was thinking the same thing about Mueller--holding off with any other unsealed indictments so as not to taint another election.

Nemdam: I felt somewhat relieved after Periello said that Donna B.'s book was simply not an issue on the campaign trail. Brazile might have kicked up her book sales but she's wrecked her reputation in Democratic circles. Amazing how many people are willing to sell their souls these days!

My mood changed yesterday when I read about turnout. It's not rocket science--when Dems turn out en masse we win. If all we'd listened to was the shade the MSM threw, we would have been encouraged to stay home. Or hang ourselves. Time to turn off the damn TV, methinks.

Meanwhile my laugh of the morning was listening to Andrea Mitchell claim she called the Dem victory/wave.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!!

Peggysue
 
Enheduanna when these classic rockers were passing around a 14/15 year old Lori Maddox in the mid 70s they were in their 20s and 30s. Ted Nugent was not a teenager when he was singing about raping a 13 year old and sharing her with a cop. Everyone knows that. People understand if you start going after Los Angeles/Nashville/UK musicians who had sex with 15/16/17 year olds in the 60s, 70s and 80s they are going to unspool a whole generation of entertainers and their will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth as everyone throws out there entire Classic Rock and Country Music collections and calls for Napster and SoundCloud, Apple to remove all the their music for all eternity. Which is exactly why it hasn't happened. So the outrage is compartmentalized..... Some people are winners on this and some people are losers.... the media and political frenzy is after the low hanging fruit. How many times has DrudgeReport done a story on Ted Nugent and 13 year old girls? I bet the answer is ZERO. I say grab a bag of popcorn and sit back and watch this insane shitshow unspool itself.



 
"When it comes to rock’s Top 10 Jailbait Songs, some artists are all talk, and others actually walked that walk. Like Ted Nugent, who didn’t just sing about underage girls: When he was 30, he became the legal guardian of a 17-year-old so they could be together. It's also not too hard to imagine that legendary Lotharios like Gene Simmons and Mick Jagger are probably singing from experience. While several of these odes to forbidden fruit come across like barroom bragging, others serve as cautionary tales. Let’s just hope that none of them give Nugent any ideas."
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/jailbait-songs/

While USSA spirals out of its collective fucking mind failing to find a way to understand and re-integrate its past mistakes, USSR laughing its ass off.


 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Antifa madness



Although much is happening today, I'd like to direct your attention to Fox News's embrace of the grand canard that Antifa was (and apparently still is) planning Civil War II. Although the video embedded above pokes fun at the Fox Newsers, I don't think that this is a laughing matter. The most powerful "news" organization in America has promulgated a deliberate lie, intentionally designed to foment a hysterical reaction against a non-existent enemy.

Right wing conspiratards and (I'm guessing) Russian trolls are blaming the Texas church shooting on Antifa.
The story appeared the same day 26-year-old Devin Patrick Kelley killed at least 26 people in First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. It said Kelley was "an Antifa member who vowed to start a civil war by ‘targeting white conservative churches’ and causing anarchy in the United States."

The post also said he "was one of two shooters in the church, according to eyewitnesses, who also report Kelley carried an Antifa flag and told the churchgoers ‘this is a communist revolution’ before unloading on the congregation, reloading several times."
None of this is true. These claims are pure concoction.

Before proceeding, let's be clear about one thing: This blog has never endorsed Antifa and never will. Many of those drawn to that organization -- if it can, in fact, be fairly called an organization -- have displayed a Trumpian disdain for the Democratic party and for mainstream liberalism. One could argue that Antifa unintentionally aids the very fascism it claims to despise.

Sure, I can comprehend Antifa's appeal: I myself was once a young ninny with testosterone poisoning and the jackass self-confidence of the ill-read. Then I spent some time in the library. Those who study history soon learn that the left embraced non-violence not just for moral reasons but for reasons of practicality: All other approaches ultimately benefit the reactionaries. If anyone on the left punches back, an overwhelming barrage of propaganda will say that he punched first. That's why King and Gandhi taught their followers not to punch at all.

But a reasoned critique of Antifa does not justify the fear-mongering of the conspiratorial right. A small, fractured movement is being transformed, in the public imagination, into something far grander and more powerful than it actually is. The paranoia is escalating and may soon reach terrifying levels. A hallucinated enemy can be used to justify the creation of a fascist army.

Unrelated added note: I'm predicting a Democratic loss in VA. I'm also predicting that the morning-after pundits will blame Hillary Clinton (for god-knows-what-reason) instead of election rigging. A Dem cannot win unless pre-election polls have him up by at least 5 points.
Permalink
Comments:
Glad you are highlighting this. Where is the discussion that military and church screwed this up. At least the Air Force is taking responsibility, but no one is discussing it. Outrageous, as you note.
 
I think Antifa is a false flag operation. Typical Roger Stone outfit.
 
Yes, Caro, I agree. The only time I hear about Antifa is when the alt-fight is trying to smear any resistance to Trump as Antifa i.e. as violent radicals. I've never heard of this group outside of that context. My suspicion is that it is an ostensibly "left wing" bogeyman created by the alt-right to smear the actual resistance.
 
Anytime a gun incident happens very near an election, the accusation is made that there is a liberal connection for the purpose of passing stricter gun control laws. Has anyone drawn a graph to see if a significant amount of the mass slayings happen near some type of election?

Of course, determining what is "near" an election would be open to interpretation.


 
Virginia called for the Dems! There was an uncontested Repub in my area down ballot. I wrote in Wonder Woman.

 
Virginia was a blue bloodbath! A trans woman beat Bathroom Bob, a socilist unseated the Republican whip, and Bernie's snub of the Dem gov candidate was totally inconsequential. And yes, there was even more!!
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Monday, November 06, 2017

Flynn, Kushner

A fair amount of wishful thinking has colored recent stories about Michael Flynn and his son. From NBC:
Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, who worked closely with his father, accompanied him during the campaign and briefly worked on the presidential transition, could be indicted separately or at the same time as his father, according to three sources familiar with the investigation.

If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son, two of the sources said, it could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences.
Everyone is forgetting about Trump's pardon power. Unless Mueller has found a state charge against the younger Flynn -- or unless investigators have found a way to circumvent the pardon problem -- I see no reason for Flynn the elder to come to sonny-boy's rescue.

Nevertheless, Louise Mensch (whom I decided to scope out today for the first time in weeks) has melodramatized -- and very nearly televisualized -- this scenario:
Sources stated that senior officials told General Flynn that they had what they needed to prosecute him and his son, and that they would seek the death penalty. Separate sources reported that General Flynn broke down and wept, asking that the death penalty for espionage not be sought for his son.

Sources with links to law enforcement and the justice department stated that at first, senior officials declined to offer a deal of any sort. Later, they became amenable, these sources said. General Flynn was offered a stark choice; co-operate and spare your son execution, but no such promise was made as regards his own trial.
My own sources report that the elder Flynn -- tears streaming down his face -- blamed everything on his son's evil twin, who looks identical in every respect except for the goatee. Investigators didn't buy that story, so the elder Flynn hired Agent Dale Cooper to go back in time and prevent the younger Flynn from getting involved with the Russians in the first place.

John Schindler of the 20 Committee (a.k.a. the XX Committee, a.k.a. the Double-Cross Committee) offered an alternative scenario of his own:
Since Big News in #KremlinGate is looming, it's time for a brief tweetstorm on what's really going on behind scenes with Team Mueller. If you're surprised that #MoscowMisha is cooked, you've not been paying attention. Sr & Jr are both going down on a bunch of charges. Flynn, like Manafort, desperately wanted a deal from Mueller, but they had 0 to offer that DoJ didn't already have. So, they're screwed. The Team Mueller + FBI/IC joint investigation here is truly massive; a CI inquiry this expansive hasn't been seen in DC since VENONA. Together, they're investigating HUNDREDS of targets for poss ties to Russian spies & mobsters. Public will be shocked when it comes out. These CI targets include WH officials; Trump associates, friends & family; journalists and lobbyists; even bloggers. It's a wide net.
In case you don't know your spy history, VENONA was the code name of an eavesdropping operation which supposedly "proved" that Alger Hiss was guilty. I question that: What VENONA really proves is that the winners write the history. So why would anyone place such faith in a DOJ and an intelligence community headed by Trump appointees?

Let us now exit Fantasyland and pay a visit to Speculationland...

The Kushner/Saudi affair. Why did a coup or a purge (choose the term you like best) occur in Saudi Arabia so soon after Jared Kushner paid that land a secret visit? I'm still not sure, but I suspect that the answer must have something to do with Kushner's white elephant of a building at 666 5th Avenue. He needs a whole lotta bail-out money and soon. If he wants to fulfill his ambition of knocking the place down and building anew, he'll need billions from an investor who doesn't mind losing money.

Normally, a would-be real estate tycoon in that situation might turn to a Russian oligarch who needs some money laundered. But Russia is a no-go, since the heat is on. Fortunately, the Saudis are in a position to play Santa Claus.

For their own part, SA is fixing to go to war not just in Yemen but in Lebanon:
Saudi Arabia said on Monday that Lebanon had declared war against it because of attacks against the Kingdom by the Lebanese Shi‘ite group Hezbollah.

Saudi Gulf affairs minister Thamer al-Sabhan told Al-Arabiya TV that Saad al-Hariri, who announced his resignation as Lebanon’s prime minister on Saturday, had been told that acts of “aggression” by Hezbollah “were considered acts of a declaration of war against Saudi Arabia by Lebanon and by the Lebanese Party of the Devil”.
And there's also the very grim possibility of war with Iran:
Saudi Arabia charged Monday that a missile fired at its capital from Yemen over the weekend was an “act of war” by Iran, in the sharpest escalation in nearly three decades of mounting hostility between the two regional rivals.

“We see this as an act of war,” the Saudi foreign minister, Adel Jubair, said in an interview on CNN. “Iran cannot lob missiles at Saudi cities and towns and expect us not to take steps.”

The accusation, which Iran denied, came a day after a wave of arrests in Saudi Arabia that appeared to complete the consolidation of power by the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, 32. Taken together, the two actions signaled a new aggressiveness by the prince both at home and abroad, as well as a new and more dangerous stage in the Saudi cold war with Iran for dominance in the region.
That's a whole lotta boom-boom being planned by a country which has traditionally eschewed the path of boom-boom. Taken altogether, it would seem that Saudi Arabia's leadership is -- or was -- divided between a pro-war faction and an anti-war (or limited-war) faction. The War Party won out.
Permalink
Comments:
I too have always had my doubts about the guilt of Hiss. Chambers and the pumpkin papers just seemed too melodramatic for reality. It just doesn't seem the way life really happens.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind