Trump era: Fascist dawn, or road to liberation?

Beau said:
mariowil7 said:
If the Saker and Pepe are correct, specially the Saker part, we all are embroiled in a TIME-LINES WAR?...

This PTB move maybe means that they have succeeded in correcting the fractioned Trump time-line and in a roundabout way we are back in the Killary pretended time-line on steroids?

They the PTB SEEMS TO BE LEARNING FAST....

Well, like I said, The Saker isn't to be taken at face value without critical distance. I think you're taking his ideas a little too far. We don't know how Trump is going to respond and deal with his first real shot across the bow by the war crazies. Saying we are back in the Killary time-line is looking at it a little too black and white IMO. I don't think the sky is falling quite yet...

Yes I have to agree that maybe my collocation was too much simplistic or as you say too B&W (Black and White)...

Your comment remembers me of the history behind the Sky is Falling...

Fear mongering — whether justified or not — can sometimes elicit a societal response called Chicken Little syndrome, described as "inferring catastrophic conclusions possibly resulting in paralysis". It has also been defined as "a sense of despair or passivity which blocks the audience from actions". The term began appearing in the 1950s and the phenomenon has been noted in many different societal contexts.

And you are right the game is not over and the "chess" pieces have room to move yet... Thanks BEAU for you comment. In fact it was just a battle lost and not all the war...
The best part is indeed to come!!!... :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:
 
Beau said:
Well, like I said, The Saker isn't to be taken at face value without critical distance. I think you're taking his ideas a little too far. We don't know how Trump is going to respond and deal with his first real shot across the bow by the war crazies. Saying we are back in the Killary time-line is looking at it a little too black and white IMO. I don't think the sky is falling quite yet...

Yeah, I'm not sure we'll know for sure what's going on until the next move is made.

As for the "timeline thing", it doesn't work in some kind of Hollywood type of way. IOW, the first order of business is to analyze logically. When we get into "timeline shift" kinds of things, it's usually after a long, protracted series of events. There are certain types of "markers" that seem to indicate this kind of thing has occurred, but it's very subtle.

In short, don't go for woo-woo explanations first when other more down-to-earth explanations might fit. Gotta keep our footsies on the ground, ya know? ;D
 
It's getting curiosor and curiosor.

Trump tweeted earlier this morning: "The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?" More on the tweet and its possible connection to Flynn here: _http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/trump-responds-flynn-resignation-real-story-here-are-illegal-leaks

Also - General Flynn's son was dismissed from the transition team a few months ago for tweeting about Pizzagate. Today Hillary Clinton and her minion have tweeted something creepy directed at both father and son. _http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/hillary-clinton-references-pizzagate-tweet-general-flynn
 
Keit said:
Laura said:
The above comments are astute IMO and pretty much reflect my view/intuition about Snowden and Assange. I think that's one reason Putin is rather amused and bemused by Snowden. In one talk he described him as a young man who has chosen this path for himself and he says it in such a way that you realize he gets it that Snowden is basically being duped. It was some Q&A thing with the press some months back. But it stuck in my mind. I doubt that the Russians are at all interested in what Snowden has in the way of "leaks" probably because they know it is just what he was provided with intentionally. Same with Assange.

Here's the video, just in case.


Yup, that's it. He is pretty clearly telling people that Snowden is obviously a plant in Russia and that he's not buying it. The last bit where he talks about Snowden being a fighter for human rights, choosing that role for himself, almost seems like he's being ironic.

Yeah, Putin knows a lot about Snowden.
 
I have issues with both Escobar and the Saker rather often. Sometimes they do very good work, but just as often, they really miss what is obvious.

I don't think Trump would have let Flynn go if he really wanted him.
 
Laura said:
I have issues with both Escobar and the Saker rather often. Sometimes they do very good work, but just as often, they really miss what is obvious.

I don't think Trump would have let Flynn go if he really wanted him.

I thought Mercouris's take was much more rational:

https://www.sott.net/article/342609-Flynn-resignation-Logan-Act-excuse-concocted-Obama-violated-it-multiple-times-most-likely-reasons-are-FBI-investigation-Flynns-personality

Skipping the analysis of events, this is what he had to say about what's happening from the Trump team's perspective:

The problem is that absurd though the FBI probe Sally Yates launched is, once launched it cannot be stopped by Presidential order, since doing so would be an abuse of Presidential power.

The result is that Flynn and the whole administration risked being distracted for weeks or months by constant sniping by the Democrats and the administration's enemies within the US bureaucracy whilst the probe was underway. It is therefore understandable that Trump's two closest political advisers - Preibus and Bannon - apparently both concluded that the administration simply could not afford this, and decided that Flynn would have to go.

I would add that the recent media attacks on Flynn are grounded on the fact that an FBI investigation is underway. Had there not been such an investigation it is difficult to see how the media attacks on Flynn could have gained traction. Indeed it is doubtful they would have happened at all. Given that were it not for these media attacks Flynn would still be President Trump's National Security Adviser, Flynn's ouster is Sally Yates's parting gift to an administration she clearly deeply opposes and was working against.

Having said all this, Donald Trump and his team would probably have stuck with Flynn had there not also been serious concerns about his performance as National Security Adviser.

By most accounts Flynn is an abrasive personality, who makes enemies easily, and there have numerous reports of his poor management skills in a job where such skills are essential. The fact that he obviously failed to take proper notes of his conversations with Kislyak - relying instead on his memory - is just one example of his sloppy approach to paperwork, something which incidentally must have dismayed Pence the lawyer.

Flynn also clearly has an obsessive streak, as shown by his pathological hostility to Iran, which is obviously inappropriate for someone who is the President's most important adviser on national security questions.

There is also another possible problem with Flynn, which may have worked against him. This is his habit of self-promotion as shown by his extraordinary appearance in the White House briefing room to read out his statement about Iran.

In the 1970s, in the age of Kissinger and Brzezinski, the President's National Security Adviser ran US foreign policy, ousting the Secretary of State and the State Department from that role. Unsurprisingly Kissinger and Brzezinsky were media stars, far outshining the Secretaries of State of the period (William Rogers, Cyrus Vance and Edward Muskie).

In the 1980s under Ronald Reagan a successful effort was made to re-establish the Secretary of State's and the State Department's primacy in managing the nation's foreign policy, with the National Security Adviser once again relegated to an advisory role. Since then no National Security Adviser has achieved anything like the power or prominence that Kissinger and Brzezinski once had.

It is not impossible that the very public role Flynn was carving out for himself alarmed some people within the foreign policy and national security bureaucracy, with fears that Flynn was seeking to make himself Donald Trump's Kissinger or Brzezinski. If so it would not be surprising if the bureaucracy united against him to see off the challenge, with even senior officials like Tillerson and Mattis in that case probably wanting Flynn to go.

Whatever the reasons for his going, Flynn's departure is however a serious blow for Donald Trump.

It is a much more serious blow than the court decisions on the 'travel ban' Executive Order, which I expect the administration to reverse or overcome.

Losing Flynn by contrast shows weakness, and has given Donald Trump's many enemies - including those in the bureaucracy - their first blood. They will now be hungering for more.

Trump and his advisers presumably calculated that the damage that would have been done by holding on to Flynn would have been greater than the damage that was done by letting him go. Time will show whether they are right. Much will depend on who Trump choses to replace him.

Thierry Meyssan thought that Flynn wanted to restructure the NSC, demoting CIA back down to an actual intelligence agency, not a covert ops team. That could very well be true, given the NSC restructuring executive order. And it's the right plan, but that doesn't mean Flynn was the right guy for the job. And as Mercouris points out, it looks like Trump may want to go in the Reagan direction of re-empowering the Sec. of State with foreign policy, as opposed to the nat. sec. advisor. Maybe Flynn didn't like that.

And if that's so, then Tillerson is the one to watch. Which is interesting in light of what Lada Ray had to say.
 
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/14/what-flynns-resignation-really-means/

What Flynn’s Resignation Really Means
Walter Russell Mead

Flynn was the wrong man for the job, but his resignation tells us less about insidious Russian schemes than the Trump Administration’s flawed assumptions about Russia.

The resignation last night of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, following a controversy over his disputed pre-inauguration contacts with the Russian Ambassador, has sent an already anxious national media into overdrive. As insinuations of Russian blackmail, deliberate misleading of the public, and Logan Act violations fill the airwaves, it is important to take stock of what we do and don’t know about Flynn’s resignation—and what it might tell us about the Trump Administration’s policy toward Russia.

First, it is not at all clear that this is a story of skeevy dealings with Russia laid bare by courageous leakers, nor does it substantiate the self-serving Democratic narrative that Putin, knowing he has incriminating evidence on Trump, cleverly engineered to throw the election to Trump. Nonetheless, that is how this is going to play among a certain group of Democrats, feeding the flames of moonbat moral certainty.

The more likely reality in the Flynn case is simpler: Flynn was, as almost everyone serious understood from the beginning, the wrong man for the NSC job. This is a job that, no matter what the Administration’s policies are, requires a cool-headed person committed to making the interagency process work so that a) as much as possible is decided without direct Presidential input, and b) where a Presidential decision is necessary, the President has the tools he needs to make the best possible decision. To do this, the NSC has to bring strong-willed people from different institutions into a process that, by its nature, is often very contentious. This works if and only if the various participants trust the process and trust the NSA.

That was the wrong job for General Flynn. He is a passionate advocate, not a cold-blooded calculator. He’s a bureaucratic street fighter, not a dispassionate traffic cop. Something was going to blow, as an emotional and hard-charging square peg struggled to fit within the confines of a round hole. Everyone, including General Flynn, should be happy that the struggle ended sooner rather than later. No happiness was going to come from this mismatch—not to the President, not to the country, not to General Flynn or those around him.

Feeling the pressure of his job, a pressure made worse by the chaotic atmosphere of any Presidential transition and especially by the chaos of this one, Flynn made serial misjudgments. He may well have leaned too far forward on his skis in conversations with the Russians. He certainly failed in the basic duty to keep the Trump Administration informed and appraised of what he was doing, especially as the controversy began to grow.

Given all this, the White House had no choice but to demand and accept his resignation. Not surprisingly, given the chaotic state of a new administration, the forced resignation of the National Security Advisor, something that would be a problem for even the smoothest-running operations, challenged the capabilities of the press and management team.

As to the substance of Russia policy, there is nothing wrong with an incoming administration opening the trading window to all comers. The idea of getting a good relationship with Russia based on our common concerns about jihadis and China appeals to every arm-chair Machiavelli who ever lived. Bill Clinton tried this, George W. “Soul Gaze” Bush tried this, and Barack “Reset” Obama also gave it a try. They all thought they were being clever and statesmanlike; they were all fundamentally wrong about what can and can’t be accomplished with Moscow under current conditions. Donald J. Trump stands in a long line of Metternich-manqués when it comes to post-Soviet Russia.

It seems likely that some of the people around Trump have conflated the idea of opening to Russia with their more general sense of how stupid establishment American policy has been since 1990—or, perhaps, for some of them, since 1948. In other words, they thought the inability of past administrations to get a good relationship with Putin was part of a generalized pattern of failure, arising from mistakes on the U.S. side rather than from the intractable nature of U.S.-Russian dynamics. Trump’s advisers seem to believe they have the “secret sauce” to make a good relationship with Putin work, just as they have the secret sauce to make Middle East peace where all others failed. In this regard, Trump actually aligns with his predecessors, all of whom took office believing they alone had the special diplomatic skills necessary to do what no one before them could.

Some on Trump’s team may have thought that an ideological affinity between Putin’s anti-cosmopolitan, nationalist stance and their own would make cooperation possible. This reflects a misunderstanding about the uses of ideology under Putin. Vladimir Putin no doubt has private convictions and beliefs, and it is likely that both social conservatism and Russian nationalism are close to his heart. However, when one speaks of Putin the ruler as opposed to Volodya the chelovek, ideology is an instrument of statecraft. Like his true forebear Napoleon III, Putin is a user of ideologies in the service of maintaining political power, not a zealot willing to stake power on truths in which he believes. If a shift toward a more liberal, accommodative stance would serve his political ends better, he would find a way to switch. For Putin, just as for Soviet leaders like Stalin and Brezhnev, an ideology is a horse to be ridden, not an ideal to be served. Given that, Putin’s goal is less to reach an accommodation with Trump (or with Obama or with Bush) than to use their own assumptions and aspirations to manipulate them.

We still don’t really know what happened with Flynn, but it may be that he was undone by the confluence of two factors: the mismatch between his own talents and character and the role he was asked to assume, and the flawed assumptions behind the Administration’s first-draft Russia policy. Flynn’s resignation tells us that the Trump Administration has already recognized the former; time will tell if it will recalibrate its position on the latter.
 
I think what the resignation of Flynn points to most clearly is that

a) Trump and Co. do want to ease the situation with Russia, but they are beset on all sides by those who would stop them...

and

b) just how few eligible candidates Trump has to pick from for any role in his administration that would attempt to shake the whole system up. Just about everyone in Washington is a dupe for American 'exceptionalism' and too stupid or afraid to take even a moderately new approach.
 
Perhaps this is how Trump is vetting his cabinet picks? Same as he did on his 'reality' show The Apprentice.... see the similarities? Sure will keep the public entertained, right? Not the best way to run the Big House, but perhaps he's doing it his way? :D The way Hillary and her senior political advisor, Reines trolled Trump using the Pizzagate Cosmic club was interesting: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/hillary-clinton-references-pizzagate-tweet-general-flynn
 
NormaRegula said:
It's getting cruiser and curiouser.

Trump tweeted earlier this morning: "The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?" More on the tweet and its possible connection to Flynn here: _http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/trump-responds-flynn-resignation-real-story-here-are-illegal-leaks

Also - General Flynn's son was dismissed from the transition team a few months ago for tweeting about Pizzagate. Today Hillary Clinton and her minion have tweeted something creepy directed at both father and son. _http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/hillary-clinton-references-pizzagate-tweet-general-flynn

General Flynn was a National Security Advisor - yet a major security breech was recently reported on Saturday February 4th and basically buried by the main stream media? Three Pakistani brothers, are under criminal investigation for unauthorized access into congressional computers. The suspects had access to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs', most sensitive information. All three brothers (and a wife) were employed by Democrats. (Were they Hillary's insider's?) And Trump is wondering where the leaks are coming from?

EXCLUSIVE: House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs Committee Members Compromised By Rogue IT Staff
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/

02/04/2017 - Three brothers who managed office information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other lawmakers were abruptly relieved of their duties on suspicion that they accessed congressional computers without permission.

Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.

Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

Also among those whose computer systems may have been compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.

The brothers are suspected of serious violations, including accessing members’ computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress.

Jamal handled IT for Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat who serves on both the intelligence and foreign affairs panels.

“As of 2/2, his employment with our office has been terminated,” Castro spokeswoman Erin Hatch told TheDCNF Friday.

Jamal also worked for Louisiana Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond, who is on the Committee on Homeland Security.

Imran worked for Reps. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat, and Jackie Speier, a California Democrat. Both are members of the intelligence committee, and their spokesmen did not respond to TheDCNF’s requests for comment. Imran also worked for the House office of Wasserman Schultz.

Then-Rep. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat, employed Abid for IT work in 2016. She was a member of House committees dealing with the armed services, oversight, and Benghazi. Duckworth was elected to the Senate in November, 2016. Abid has a prior criminal record and a bankruptcy.

Abid also worked for Rep. Lois Frankel, a Florida Democrat who is member of the foreign affairs committee.

The three men are “shared employees,” meaning they are hired by multiple offices, which split their salaries and use them as needed for IT services. It is up to each member to fire them.

A criminal investigation into five unnamed people began late last year related to serious and potentially illegal violations of House IT policies, Politico reported Thursday. Chiefs of staff for the members were briefed Thursday by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Capitol Police spokeswoman Eva Malecki said the investigation was still ongoing, and arrests have not been made but staff were “asked to update their security settings.”

Buzzfeed reported that the Sergeant-at-Arms told staff that the subjects were four men who were brothers and one woman. It did not name them.

It quoted one of the affected members as saying “they said it was some sort of procurement scam, but now I’m concerned that they may have stolen data from us, emails, who knows.”

Jamal did not return a request for comment from TheDCNF at a personal email address, while emails to House addresses in the three men’s names bounced back Friday.

Abid, Imran and Jamal have all shared a house in Lorton, Virginia, that is owned by Hina R. Alvi. Alvi is a female House IT employee who works for many of the same members as the three brothers, as well as the House Democratic Caucus.

Signs of trouble have long been visible in public records. The Congressional Credit Union repossessed Abid’s car in 2009, and he declared bankruptcy in 2012, facing multiple lawsuits.

Alvi, who did not respond to The DCNF’s request for comment, has taken multiple second mortgages.

Security-sensitive jobs typically require background checks for credit and legal problems that can create pressures to cash in on access to secret information and documents.

Jamal, who public records suggest is only 22 years old and first began working in the House when he was 20, was paid nearly $160,000 a year, or three times the average House IT staff salary, according to InsideGov, which tracks congressional salaries. Abid was paid $161,000 and Imran $165,000.


Jack Langer, spokesman for the intelligence committee, said the committee office has its own IT staff and security measures and classified information from the panel is not allowed to be sent to members’ personal offices.


While the MSM is still in full "attack Trump" mode, breathlessly reporting each of his tweets, attacking his cabinet picks, gleefully celebrating how the most liberal court in the land, as well as the one that has the most over-turned rulings by the Supreme Court, has temporarily blocked the immigration pause, we see that one of the biggest bombshells was dropped on February 4, 2017, yet major outlets like Washington Post, New York Times and other mainstream outlets, has either downplayed it or simply hidden it from their audience.

MSM Hides One Of The Biggest National Security Breaches Of The Century From Their Audience
http://allnewspipeline.com/Bombshell_MSM_Is_Hiding.php

February 10, 2017 - Three Pakistani brothers, are under criminal investigation for unauthorized access into congressional computers. The suspects had access to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs', most sensitive information.

Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.

Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

All three brothers were employed by Democrats.

Maria Bartiromo of Fox News discusses this issue in the short clip below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktqdYXd1qJQ (2:11 min.)

How sensitive is the information these men had access to? That is explained in detail by FrontPage:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265729/muslim-brotherhood-security-breach-congress-daniel-greenfield

The offices that employed them included HPSCI minority members Speier, Carson and Joaquín Castro. Congressman Castro, who also sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence the services of Jamal Moiz Awan. Speier and Carson’s offices utilized Imran Awan.

Abid A. Awan was employed by Lois Frankel and Ted Lieu: members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also on the committee is Castro. As is Robin Kelly whose office employed Jamal Awan. Lieu also sits on the subcommittees on National Security and Information Technology of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Tammy Duckworth’s office had also employed Abid. Before Duckworth successfully played on the sympathy of voters to become Senator Tammy Duckworth, she had been on the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Armed Services Committee.

Gwen Graham, who had also been on the Armed Services Committee and on the Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee, had employed Jamal Awan. Jamal was also employed by Cedric Richmond’s office. Richmond sits on the Committee on Homeland Security and on its Terrorism and Cybersecurity subcommittee. He is a ranking member of the latter subcommittee. Also employing Jamal was Mark Takano of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Imran had worked for the office of John Sarbanes who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees, among other things, the nuclear industry. Other members of the Committee employing the brothers included Yvette Clarke, who also sits on the Bipartisan Encryption Working Group, Diana DeGette, Dave Loebsack and Tony Cardenas.

But finally there’s Andre Carson. Carson is the second Muslim in Congress and the first Muslim on the the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, more critically, is the ranking member on its Emerging Threats Subcommittee. He is also a member of the Department of Defense Intelligence and Overhead Architecture Subcommittee.

The bold print emphasis above is mine, showing the amount of critical, dangerous information that these men had access to. One would think that major media outlets would at least be asking why these people were accessing data they were unauthorized to access, to the point where there is now a criminal investigation into those security breaches, and more critically, what were they doing with the information they were accessing?

According to Politico, Imran Awan, who has worked for more than two dozen Democrats since 2004, is still on the payroll of former DNC Chair and current Representative of Florida's 23rd congressional district, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was forced to step down from the DNC Chair after Wikileaks exposed her corrupt practices during the presidential campaign season.

That same article reports Imran Awan's wife, Hina Alvi, is also still employed by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), pending investigation.

In a follow up article, The Daily Caller, found that these men and Iman's wife, had massive debts and a history of suspicious activity, yet PJ Media reports that "the House passed a rule last year requiring all employees with access to IT to pass background checks in order to flag potential problems such as the credit and legal issues." Those background checks were applied retroactively and the only way to avoid them was if "a 'hiring authority' in a congressional office had signed a waiver attesting to the 'trustworthiness and judgment' of the privileged user."

We have multiple Congressional employees, from Pakinstani descent, accessing information critical to national security on almost every level, with no idea what they have been doing with said information, all under criminal investigation........ so where are the mainstream media reports?

In the video below after a very brief description of why I am doing Google searches in the New York Times and Washington Post, in a one month time frame, for the names Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan, we see that according to Google, all three names when plugged into their search engine come up as "did not match any documents," in both major newspapers.

Below the video are screen shots from a direct search from over the last seven days at the NYT website itself, which comes up with the same results..... nothing, nada, zip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYgOXh8hBXI (7:02 min.)

BOTTOM LINE

We are left wondering why both the NYT and Wapo is hiding what could arguably be one of the biggest national security breaches of the century, from their readers.

The Daily Caller exclusive was published on February 4, 2017, which has give the MSM outlets mentioned above six full days to report this to their audience.... so why haven't they?

Over the last two years we have learned that when the media doesn't want the public to know something, it is usually something we should know.
 
Two latest tweets by Trump...

Crimea was TAKEN by Russia during the Obama Administration. Was Obama too soft on Russia?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831846101179314177

Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831840306161123328

I'm afraid that if Trump follows this route, he may very soon have way more opponents than just the libtards and Western oligarchs. Quite interesting that his rethorics has changed so radically overnight just after Flynn resigned.
 
Laura said:
Keit said:
Laura said:
The above comments are astute IMO and pretty much reflect my view/intuition about Snowden and Assange. I think that's one reason Putin is rather amused and bemused by Snowden. In one talk he described him as a young man who has chosen this path for himself and he says it in such a way that you realize he gets it that Snowden is basically being duped. It was some Q&A thing with the press some months back. But it stuck in my mind. I doubt that the Russians are at all interested in what Snowden has in the way of "leaks" probably because they know it is just what he was provided with intentionally. Same with Assange.

Here's the video, just in case.


Yup, that's it. He is pretty clearly telling people that Snowden is obviously a plant in Russia and that he's not buying it. The last bit where he talks about Snowden being a fighter for human rights, choosing that role for himself, almost seems like he's being ironic.

Yeah, Putin knows a lot about Snowden.

Snowden look like a piece of control system. As far as I remember I don't hear from him anything new, only this what could be read or hear from good know content set out on the web. In other words: they sell Snowden and give him to Russia to make him looking as the opponent to the USA, when in fact he isn't, but it was created to keep those who are opposed to the US in web created with Snowden.
 
Siberia said:
Two latest tweets by Trump...

Crimea was TAKEN by Russia during the Obama Administration. Was Obama too soft on Russia?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831846101179314177

Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831840306161123328

I'm afraid that if Trump follows this route, he may very soon have way more opponents than just the libtards and Western oligarchs. Quite interesting that his rethorics has changed so radically overnight just after Flynn resigned.

In terms of what he has said tweeted about Crimea, he might be saying it to appear tough on Russia and take some of the heat off that TPTB has been applying leading to the Flynn resignation, only to back down from it later.
 
Bear said:
Siberia said:
Two latest tweets by Trump...

Crimea was TAKEN by Russia during the Obama Administration. Was Obama too soft on Russia?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831846101179314177

Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831840306161123328

I'm afraid that if Trump follows this route, he may very soon have way more opponents than just the libtards and Western oligarchs. Quite interesting that his rethorics has changed so radically overnight just after Flynn resigned.

In terms of what he has said tweeted about Crimea, he might be saying it to appear tough on Russia and take some of the heat off that TPTB has been applying leading to the Flynn resignation, only to back down from it later.

It reminds of something that has been said in this Sott article:

...Trump opens with a big first offer and negotiates back to something reasonable. If you don't recognize the method, it looks crazy, random, and racist.
 
Back
Top Bottom