Six Degrees From Brookings: How a Liberal Think Tank Keeps Coming Up in the Russian Collusion Investigation

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  4 weeks ago  •  80 comments

By:   JONATHAN TURLEY

Six Degrees From Brookings: How a Liberal Think Tank Keeps Coming Up in the Russian Collusion Investigation
On July 28, former CIA Director John Brennan briefed then President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Notes from the meeting state the plan to invent a collusion narrative was “allegedly approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The latest indictment by Special Counsel John Durham has created a stir in Washington as the investigation into the Russian collusion scandal exposed new connections to the Clinton campaign.  The indictment of   Igor Danchenko  exposes additional close advisers to Hillary Clinton who allegedly pushed discredited and salacious allegations in the Steele dossier. However, one of the most interesting new elements was the role of a liberal think tank, the Brookings Institution, in the alleged effort to create a false scandal of collusion. Indeed, Brookings appears so often in accounts related to the Russian collusion scandal that it could be Washington’s alternative to the  Kevin Bacon parlor game . It appears that many of these figures are within six degrees of Brookings.

The fact is that Washington remains a small town for the ruling elite where degrees of separation can be quite small as figures move in and out of government. Moreover, think tanks are often the parking lots for party loyalists as they wait (and work) for new Administrations. The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation play a similar role for conservative figures.

However, even in Washington’s inbred environment, the layers of connections to Brookings is remarkable in the Durham indictments and accounts of the effort to create a Russian collusion scandal. The effort was hardly a secret before anyone knew the name of the former British spy Christopher Steele. On July 28, former CIA Director John Brennan briefed then President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Notes from the meeting state the plan to invent a collusion narrative was “allegedly approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the Russian investigation was initiated.

Durham is detailing how this plan was carried out and many of those referenced are within not six but two degrees of separation from Brookings.

Brookings played a large role in pushing the Russian collusion narrative, hiring a variety of experts who then populated media outlets like MSNBC and CNN stating confidently that Trump was clearly incriminated in a series of dubious criminal acts. While no such crimes were ever charged, let alone prosecuted, Brookings maintained a deep bench of enabling experts like  Susan Hennessey  (now  a national security adviser in the Biden Administration ),  Ben Wittes  (who defended James Comey in his leaking of FBI memos) and  Norm Eisen  (who then become  counsel in the Trump impeachment  effort). This included the Brookings site, LawFare, which ran a steady stream of columns on how Trump could be charged for crimes ranging from obstruction to bribery.

However, that type of media cross-pollination is common. What is most surprising is how the indictment seems to map out roads that keep leading back to Brookings:

The latest indicted figure,  Danchenko, worked at Brookings . He proved to be the key unnamed source for Christopher Steele and later admitted to the FBI that the information attributed to him was not just “unsubstantiated” but, after being reworked by Steele, was unrecognizable from the original gossip or speculation. Steele himself was introduced to Danchenko

It appears that Danchenko was introduced to former British spy Christopher Steele  by Brookings employee Fiona Hill . If that name seems familiar, Hill secured a position on President Trump’s National Security Council and later became a key witness against him in the first Trump impeachment over the Ukraine scandal.

Steele also  testified in London  that his friend and then Brookings President Strobe Talbott was involved in briefings and inquiries on the development of the dossier. Talbott is also a former Clinton administration diplomat and Clinton friend who served in a high-ranking position under Hillary Clinton. (Another figure,  Cody Shearer , who has been mentioned in accounts developing and  spreading his own collusion claims , was the brother of Talbott’s  late wife ).

When Steele was called to the State Department for a briefing on his dossier, Talbot sat next to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who is  currently at Brookings . The role of figures at Brookings in the dossier is still developing but all roads seem to lead back to the think tank.

Even when it became clear that false statements made in the secret FISA applications targeted Trump associate Carter Page, the secret court selected  David Kris, who wrote for Brookings’ LawFare  despite his prior denial that the FBI misled the court and criticism of Trump).

Brookings has long been viewed as effectively the research arm for Democratic figures and liberal causes. Yet, even in the Baconesque world of Washington insiders, it is rare to see a think tank connected on so many levels to a criminal investigation. Like much in our politics, these connections will mean different things to different people. For conservatives, Brookings looks like the mothership for this scandal with associates coordinating meetings and roles in the m etastasization  of the scandal.  For liberals, the connections simply show the influence of the liberal think tank and any highlighting of the think tank is gaslighting a new “ Trilateral Commission ” narrative.

With the exception of Danchenko, there is no evidence that any of these Brookings-related individuals have committed criminal acts or are suspected of such acts by Durham. However, these connections have already factored in the investigation and are likely to be addressed in any final Special Counsel report. Brookings Institution’s influence on the Russian collusion scandal will likely remain central to Durham’s unravelling of how the FBI was duped into the Russian investigation and the role of Clinton operatives in that effort. Notably, on September 9, 2015, Hillary Clinton appeared at Brookings and stressed there are “ a lot of long-time friends and colleagues who perch here at Brookings including Strobe .” The question is whether that perch will become increasing precarious as Durham continues his investigation.


05282015_66951-e1532723116454.jpg?fit=297%2C300&ssl=1
Jonathan Turley


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

It really was a big team effort. FBI payments to/firing of Steele, the actual lying FISA warrants, Bruce Ohr admissions on the hoax, Comey's stealing of classified info on Trump, McCabe lies -- and the entire Clinton email scandal, etc.

I wonder if Hillary Clinton will be questioned?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 weeks ago

The US Senate concluded that the Trump campaigned "colluded" with Russia. 

The idea that the Durham witch hunt will exonerate Trump from the Senate findings is one of the stranger things I have seen. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    4 weeks ago

You're still a believer!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
1.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    4 weeks ago
The US Senate concluded that the Trump campaigned "colluded" with Russia. 

And the senate "concluded" Trump did something that apparently isn't in US Code.

Mueller’s 448-page report is broken into two sections. The first deals with things that don’t really exist, such as “collusion” and “coordination.” The second part deals with whether President Trump and/or the administration obstructed the investigation into the first two things that don’t actually exist. Given the length of the investigation — more than two years — and the length of the written report (over half the size of Ayn Rand’s “ The Fountainhead ”), it wasn’t just in early March of this year that Mueller concluded that there was no “collusion” or “coordination” between the campaign and the Russians . (emphasis mine)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

And that's why the Mueller team, who knew right for the beginning that there was no collusion, focused on trying to show that Trump had obstructed justice.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.2    4 weeks ago
it wasn’t just in early March of this year that Mueller concluded that there was no “collusion” or “coordination” between the campaign and the Russians . (emphasis mine)

that sentence is simply a lie

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    4 weeks ago

That's not good enough. Disprove it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    4 weeks ago
Mueller concluded that there was no “collusion” or “coordination” between the campaign and the Russians
-

Mueller report: collusion findings are devastating for Trump - Vox

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Donald Trump and Russia   establishes a damning series of facts about the Trump campaign’s connections to the Kremlin.

We learned that two Trump campaign officials, campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, were regularly providing polling information to a Russian national whom Gates believed to be a “spy.”

We learned that, after Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails, he privately ordered future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to find them. Flynn reached out to a man named Peter Smith who (apparently falsely) told a number of people that he was in contact with Russian agents.

We learned that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempted to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and that Trump personally approved Papadopoulos’s work on this front.

The report is very clear that Mueller’s investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired on illegal Russian election interference, or that it coordinated with Russia through either an active or tacit agreement.

But the report, combined with other publicly known facts — that Donald Trump Jr. arranged a meeting with the express purpose of obtaining Russian “dirt” on Clinton, and that Papadopoulos was offered similar dirt from a Russian agent, among others — paints a damning picture of the campaign. It was both actively seeking to cultivate a relationship with the Russian government and willing to work with it to acquire damaging information about its political opponents. That willingness included explicitly sharing information with or soliciting information from Russian operatives.

As the report takes pains to point out, “collusion” has no legal definition and is not a federal crime. So while the report did not establish conspiracy or coordination, it does not make a determination on “collusion” — and in fact, it strongly suggests that there was at least an attempt to collude by Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government.

The fact that it did not rise to the level of criminal activity does not mean it was not a serious breach of trust and a damning indictment of the president’s commitment to the health of the American legal and political system. The section of the report focusing on Russian interference in the election is not an exoneration of Trump’s innocence. It’s a devastating portrayal of his approach to politics.

The strong evidence of (something like) collusion

Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.

“Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”

So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.

But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    4 weeks ago

Oh Vox!

Plenty of evidence?

Yet the likes of the Trump-hating Mueller team couldn't bring a single charge against Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    4 weeks ago

Donald Trump Jr colluded with the Russians by having the Jun 9th meeting. 

He wasnt prosecuted because Mueller suggested Trump Jr was too stupid to realize what he was doing was illegal, and prosecution required intent. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    4 weeks ago
the Trump-hating Mueller team couldn't bring a single charge against Trump

that wasn't his job. hopefully, the unredacted and declassified report gets released, right after trumpski announces his 2024 candidacy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
Donald Trump Jr colluded with the Russians by having the Jun 9th meeting. 

No he didn't. That meeting was about adoptions, was ended early and there is a Fusion GPS connection to it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    4 weeks ago
hopefully, the unredacted and declassified report gets released

Why would someone as radical as Merrick Galand not release it?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
He wasnt prosecuted because Mueller suggested Trump Jr was too stupid to realize what he was doing was illegal, and prosecution required intent.

Is that what Mueller thought?  I'm not sure Mueller thought anything. He was selected only to give the investigation the look of credibility. I'm quite sure it was Andrew Weissmann who did all the thinking.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    4 weeks ago

Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner went to that meeting with the expectation that they were going to receive dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. That is collusion .

It is hard to discuss these things with people that have virtually no grasp of the facts. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.11    4 weeks ago
Why would someone as radical as Merrick Galand not release it

Probably because it would end the left's fever dreams of secret information that will "get Trump for sure" they've been pushing for 5 years. It never seems to occur to them that congressional dems had access to the entire redacted report and never even bothered to use any of it in one of their impeachments. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.13    4 weeks ago
Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner went to that meeting with the expectation that they were going to receive dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.

That's what they were told. If Fushion GPS was behind the idea of the meeting - it would be entrapment.  I got a feeling we are about to find out more about Fusion GPS and Marc Elias, but before that there may be a few more indictments.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.14    4 weeks ago

Many want to believe and here on NT we have the extreme left. They will defend the Clinton hoax to the death.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
1.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    4 weeks ago

Against something that didn't exist in the first place.  Either way, the "investigation" was into nothing and produced nothing.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
1.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    4 weeks ago

I should remind you that “collusion” has no legal definition and is not a federal crime. 

The whole Meuller investigation was the result of shock at the "FNG" beating the "shoe in" candidate and the mumblings of that "shoe in" candidate founded in fiction.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.19  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    4 weeks ago

No, it is not a lie at all.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    4 weeks ago

We're still waiting on those Durham indictments on the entire Obama administration!

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    4 weeks ago
"That meeting was about adoptions"

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
1.1.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    4 weeks ago
That meeting was about adoptions, was ended early

yep. Right there in quite a few quotes and links. Funny people can't see that.........and they even knew it back then when it happened but just KNEW Mueller was gonna be able to twist it. As it turns out, once again, Nothing Burger.

Funny shit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.19    4 weeks ago

Of course it is.  You should know.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.24  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
Trump Jr was too stupid

John.....if stupidity was some kind of defense for a crime, 90% of criminals would go free. You can stop digging the hole is plenty deep. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Those lawfare columns did nothing but feed the hysteria we saw from the left.  Did a tremendous amount of damage to our country.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    4 weeks ago

Trump was under seige his entire term and Obama had been briefed on the lie before the inauguration.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 weeks ago

It was collusion between the Hillary campaign and the obama regime.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

We might just find out

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

NOPE!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.4  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

Yes, we can! 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 weeks ago
The latest indictment by Special Counsel John Durham has created a stir in Washington as the investigation into the Russian collusion scandal exposed new connections to the Clinton campaign.

many of us have known it started with with the Clinton campaign from the start.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    4 weeks ago
many of us have known it started with with the Clinton campaign from the start.  

And everyone should have faced up to the truth when the IG issued a report implicating at least one member of the special counsel's team for falsified evidence against Carter Page to secure a warrant that was used to spy on the Trump campaign.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    4 weeks ago

They were to into the hysteria of trying to cover this all up that nobody really noticed.  But it's come back to bite them in the ass.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

They did a lot of elaborate planning and they had plenty of help.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

And still got caught.  It's like asking the kid with chocolate on their face if they at the candy and the kid denying it.  It's comical in a way.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.3    4 weeks ago
And still got caught.  It's like asking the kid with chocolate on their face if they at the candy and the kid denying it.  It's comical in a way.

They try to deny the obvious here every day. I suppose the most glaring example was when some here tried to make it seem that the Cleveland Clinic Study said the opposite of what it said:



How can we ever forget that one!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    4 weeks ago

Where is your proof?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    4 weeks ago

Trump was in secret negotiations with the Russians to build Trump Tower Moscow right up to election day in 2021. He lied about it and even offered Vlad Putin a penthouse apartment as a bribe. So, there is that...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @4    4 weeks ago

Well right up till election day he was still just Donald Trump, American citizen and businessman trying to take care of business. Is there a problem with that?

And I doubt he was actually, physically in the negotiations. He has/had people for that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1    4 weeks ago

While he was in negotiations for a possible trump Tower Moscow (which never developed to frutition) , Trump was lying to the American people , saying he had no business dealings with Russia. Why was he lying? Because he presumed , naturally, that the American voter would be skeptical of a presidential candidate who was doing personal business in Russia. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
hy was he lying? Because he presumed , naturally, that the American voter would be skeptical of a presidential candidate who was doing personal business in Russia.

So the DOJ can investigate anytime a President lies?  

 Biden lying about payments to illegal aliens is grounds for an independent counsel, than? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

Lying? Was there a deal struck? Not just no but hell no. So no dealings but rather obvious low level negotiations with his "people" doing the negotiating. You can call it what you want but as soon as he won it died on the vine.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
4.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

Want to go into who had more stakes in Russia? Clintons received millions for speaking engagements in Russia; not to mention the Clinton Foundation. Not to mention the pay for play when she was SOS.

As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010,   Bill Clinton   sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.

Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.

ADVERTISEMENT
“In the context of a possible trip to Russia at the end of June, WJC is being asked to see the business/government folks below. Would State have concerns about WJC seeing any of these folks,” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote the State Department on May 14, 2010, using the former president’s initials and forwarding the list of names to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team.

After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department , an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows. Where he once had drawn $150,000 for a typical address in the years following his presidency, Clinton saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China .

Or by those who are nonplussed by reports uncovered by The Hill showing a top Russian spy came dangerously close to infiltrating the secretary of state’s inner circle in 2010 , even as her husband was doing business with an American law firm that was also lobbying Hillary Clinton and other Cabinet members for approval of a huge uranium deal. Bill Clinton also accepted $500,000 in speaking fees from a Kremlin-based bank with financial ties to the deal.

Some have plausible excuses for all of this behavior; we’re less inclined to view these as mere coincidences.

Clinton and DNC officials claim they weren’t aware that their middlemen, the Perkins Coie law firm and GPS Fusion, contracted with a British intelligence officer who had been head of MI6’s Russia desk to explore Trump’s ties to Russia and dig up dirt — and that this ex-spy relied on Russian government sources for much of his trove.

No one knows the role Clinton played in ushering the Uranium One deal without any opposition through the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment, but now would be a good time for Congress to demand that this information be disclosed given the closeness of Clinton’s team to a Russian spy at the time and the financial ties between the Clintons and Russian businesses involved in the deal.

So, negotiating a contract for a Trump hotel that never came to be. Or the Clintons taking large speaking fees; and the Clinton Foundation taking in millions from Russia. Nothing to see here folks, just move along. Follow the damn money for a change Democrats!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4    4 weeks ago

Prove it!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    4 weeks ago

how? I don't think the white supremacist alt-media carried the story...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

Keep saying "white supremacy."  I want to keep reminding those idependents on what they voted for.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure they figured it out right after charlottesville...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @4.2.3    4 weeks ago

Oh? Tell us what that was about.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.4    4 weeks ago

Do you know what Charlottesville was about Vic?  I do. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.6  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.4    4 weeks ago

sheet wearing trumpsters flexing their new clout and then being vindicated by the klan presidency.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.4    4 weeks ago

So many people want to add their own agenda to Charlottesville. It was, or at least started out to be, a protest against removing a statue which would have only been a blip on the radar had some liberal asswipes just let it go on and pay it no attention. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.7    4 weeks ago
So many people want to add their own agenda to Charlottesville. It was, or at least started out to be, a protest against removing a statue which would have only been a blip on the radar had some liberal asswipes just let it go on and pay it no attention. 

Complete and total nonsense. It is astonishing how little you people know about what is going on in the world. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.8    4 weeks ago

Unite the Right rally - Wikipedia

The  Unite  the  Right rally  was a white supremacist rally that took place in Charlottesville , Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017. Far- right   groups participated, including self-identified members of the alt- right , neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and various   right -wing militias.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.7    4 weeks ago

  Far-right  groups participated, including self-identified members of the  alt-right , [12]   neo-Confederates , [13]   neo-fascists , [14]   white nationalists , [15]   neo-Nazis , [16]   Klansmen , [17]  and various right-wing  militias . [18]  Some groups chanted  racist  and  antisemitic  slogans and carried weapons,  Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols , the  Valknut Confederate battle flags Deus Vult  crosses, flags, and other symbols of various past and present  anti-Islamic  and  anti-Semitic  groups. [24]   The organizers' stated goals included unifying the American  white nationalist  movement [12]  and opposing the proposed removal of the  statue of General Robert E. Lee  from Charlottesville's former  Lee Park . [22] [25]

-

It didnt start out as an innocent protest. It started out as a white supremacist rally and the protest was included as a fig leaf or "reason" for the white supremacist rally. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.2.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.9    4 weeks ago

From your link...........

"  The organizers' stated goals included unifying the American  white nationalist  movement [12]  and opposing the proposed removal of the  statue of General Robert E. Lee  from Charlottesville's former  Lee Park ."

You were saying???jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.10    4 weeks ago

So one can only have one reason and not multiple for a gathering? That's some funny shit right there JR.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @4.2.6    4 weeks ago
sheet wearing trumpsters flexing their new clout and then being vindicated by the klan presidency.

I didn't think you knew anything about it. You finally proved something.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.9    4 weeks ago

We need not hear from leftist posters on Wikipedia.

devangelical doesn't know, so I'll ask you what was Charlottesville about?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.14    4 weeks ago

I have already said what it was about. This is not controversial by the way.

I'd rather hear what you think it was about. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.10    4 weeks ago
and opposing the proposed removal of the  statue of General Robert E. Lee

Oh finally!  John got it - it was about removing statues.

Here's the big question, John....get ready.....

Of those who wanted that statue removed and those who didn't, were there not good & bad people on both sides?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.17  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.14    4 weeks ago

neo-nazis and the klan uniting in the trump base.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.16    4 weeks ago

Vic, every single person , every one, who went to that park that day KNEW they were attending a white supremacist rally. It had been openly discussed in Charlottesville and in local media for weeks. The official permit for the rally was issued to a white supremacist group, and that was well known too. Giving white supremacists a city permit was a controversial issue within the city, and was in the media prior to the event. 

Are you saying that "good people" knowingly went to and participated in a rally on the side of white racists?  I dont really accept that  description of the "protesters" that Trump gave. At the very least they were not "good" people on that day. 

You are attempting to claim that innocent "good" people went to protest a statue removal, and unbeknownst to them a white supremacist rally broke out.  That is absolutely not what happened. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.2.17    4 weeks ago
neo-nazis and the klan uniting in the trump base

What bullshit.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.18    4 weeks ago
Are you saying that "good people" knowingly went to and participated in a rally on the side of white racists?

Of course not John. That's not the issue, nor were they the only extremists that were there. The issue was statues and those who wanted them to stay or be removed.

Everyone but the fucking Trump haters knows that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.18    4 weeks ago
Vic, every single person , every one, who went to that park that day KNEW they were attending a white supremacist rally.

So all the good people on the "other" side knew they were attending a white supremacist rally?

Interesting.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.21    4 weeks ago
So all the good people on the "other" side knew they were attending a white supremacist rally?

Yep. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.21    4 weeks ago

Two extremist groups showed up and had it out and that's all they claim it was about - because they tried to lie about what Trump said.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.20    4 weeks ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.24    4 weeks ago

It was originally about a statue. The only reason you are focused on radical groups who showed up (and there were two - one from the left as well) is because you want to continue to ignore that there are good and bad people on both sides of the statue controversy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.25    4 weeks ago

I deleted my comment 4.2.24 because I did not phrase it properly.   The purpose of the rally was to bring white supremacist groups from around the country together for a white power show of force. The statue was the fig leaf. 

The night before all the violence, white supremacists marched at the site carrying tiki torches and shouting racist slogans. There are now iconic photos of it. 

fightnazis01.jpg?4321

It was all over Charlottesville tv news.  And you want to tell us that "good people" went there the next day to march with these guys? Please. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.26    4 weeks ago
The statue was the fig leaf. 

No John, the statue is what "triggers" them (to use a leftist term). Whenever it's about Confederate statues, they will get excited.

You may remember that somebody warned it wouldn't stop with Confederate statues... it would spread to all kinds of American statues.

As so often was the case, he was right.


BTW This group killed 25 people last summer:

5edc3aaf28fbf.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C800

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.25    4 weeks ago

naziposter812.jpg

unite-the-right-promotional-poster.png

R.7e5287663988fea3c272f4688dfaaa5c?rik=kiVKvnRP37fn2Q&riu=http%3a%2f%2fnoisyroom.net%2fblog%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f08%2fRight-663x1024.jpg&ehk=LS6mtw2uOoYVcPLRDfPy0XeKKbpgmj2InIY%2bg1Lp8JU%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.29  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.15    4 weeks ago

And then we had democrats dress up their own in that manner and send them to the Youngkin campaign bus.  Now we have an African American woman and a Hispanic American man being accused of being mouthpieces of white supremacy by the progressive left.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.30  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @4.2.17    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.31  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.19    4 weeks ago

But it’s “dialogue” allowed to the secular left here.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4    4 weeks ago
ump was in secret negotiations with the Russians to build Trump Tower Moscow right up to election day in 2021.

 Who cares? That's not a crime.

d Vlad Putin a penthouse apartment as a bribe

Lol.. Imagine thinking you can bribe one of the richest people on the planet with a condo.  I have no idea if this is true,  but perhaps you've heard of this thing called advertising? It's where rich and powerful people are given money and benefits to associate with a brand.  Do you think that's "bribery" too? 

Actual bribery is a crime. Can you point to where anyone in the Trump org  was indicted for bribing Putin? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4    4 weeks ago
Trump was in secret negotiations with the Russians to build Trump Tower Moscow right up to election day in 2021.

You have posted this often.

Is negotiating to build something illegal now?

Can you prove a bribe or even anything AT ALL?????

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

BTW I think from here on, we should refer to the Steele Dossier as the Clinton Dossier

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


41 visitors