MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 month ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 4 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 4 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 4 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 months ago
Hits of the Day
Ghost of J. Edgar Haunts Flynn Investigation
By A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 05/18/2020 - 8:40am |Former FBI special agent Coleen Rowley explains Bureau misdeeds in the Flynn case.
URL:
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/05/18/ghost-of-j-edgar-haunts-flynn-investigation/
- Add new comment
- 7701 reads
Comments
Yes, Virginia, judges trump attorneys general. Deal with it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/flynns-new-argument-co...
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/19/2020 - 11:39am
Lulu likes lying
He likes lying so much he's willing to bet his reputation on a hack saying it's okay to lie to the FBI as long as you don't do much else. Except if your lies keep the FBI from investigating further crimes, especially with our major world antagonist, one that just hacked our election?
Hey Lulu, I addressed a lot of the Priestrap stuff over here:
http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/doj-craziness-thread-31158
but you can't be bothered to comment there.
Because you like Putin and Assad and all sorts of shady characters as long as they work against the normal lawful functioning of US government.
Hey, Trump told lies to Mueller - of course he held scheming meetings with Russians in Trump Tower to get help in exchange for dropping sanctions, had Roger Stone collude with WikiLeaks & Guccifer to leak Hillary/Podesta/DNC emails, had Flynn go talk to Kislyak to calm the Russians down about sanctions, had his campaign manager Manafort leak polling data for PA/MI/WI/MN to Kilimnik to pass on to KGB/GRU, work d with Maria Butina to extract favors from the NRA & top GOP pols (and then whisked her out of the country without ever being interrogated on this activity).
But you'll link one of these bullshit Consortium articles saying the FBI has no right to investigate the worst conspiracy with Russian spies because "lying ain't so bad" - who the fuck are you?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/19/2020 - 11:58am
“Lulu likes lying”.
Typical of the way you respond when in smear mode and why I have chosen, in many cases, to not respond to your shit slinging when that is what you are doing. You go first and hardest with bullshit ad hominem attacks and then go on as if everything you have ever bought into and spouted about is an irrefutable fact. I am confident that you know the definition of ‘lie’. You are clearly lying when you call me a liar for anything I have posted here, ever. If what you mean is that I like the lies of others you are just as wrong. Regardless, your first sentence makes it clear that you are not addressing me and responding honestly to what I posted but rather are accusing me. You, PeraclesPlease, like bullshit.
"Because you like Putin and Assad and all sorts of shady characters as long as they work against the normal lawful functioning of US government".
It is hard to listen to you rant without thinking of Allen Ginsburg’s 1956 poem: America
“America”.
America, it’s them bad Russians.
Them Russians.
Them Russians and them Chinamen.
And them Russians.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 05/19/2020 - 1:46pm
Yo Lulu, 1956? That was when Russia was sending the Warsaw Pact tanks into Budapest to crack down. 2 years later Mao would launch his "Great Leap Forward" that killed 20-40 million Chinese. A funny bearded gay poet with harmonium may be lots of fun, but he doesn't innoculate against vicious shitty politics. 10 years later Ginsburg got booted from Cuba and Czechoslovakia, likely Russia & Poland as well. Darkness at Noon was a bit more accepted by then. 3 years later Russian tanks rolled into Prague as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/19/2020 - 1:59pm
Marcy slams Glenn Greenwald
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/19/2020 - 8:52pm
What is most peculiar to me is how highlighting the excesses of the FBI relates to a particular case.
This is not like raiding a compound in Waco. The matter under consideration is whether the President is working for people and who they might be. It is always possible that such an investigation could be motivated by corrupt motivations. It is fair to allow a discussion of how that may be the case.
But what is strange about that line of thinking is the idea that corruption, which has been charged against previous officers of the State, is not connected to what is happening now. If the thing being brought into view is what has existed in the past, it exists now.
by moat on Tue, 05/19/2020 - 9:28pm
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/20/2020 - 12:12pm
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/20/2020 - 1:45pm
Lulu, Flynn lied to cover up coordination (collusion) Russia calls with Mar-a-Lago - certainly worth revisiting, no?
and even Turley's hedging his bets on Flynn atty Powell's latest batshit insane filing that directly attacts a judge in rather caustic juvenile & unbelievable fashion.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/20/flynn-was-hiding-that-he-coordinat...
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/21/2020 - 2:09am
Lawyers on both sides of cases litigate based on different interpretations of law, different standing on which laws are pertinent to the case, whether a law was actually broken, etc, etc. Marcy Wheeler is a lawyer who has taken the role of prosecutor versus Flynn. She presents arguments and guesses and opinions all to support her prosecution. She is smart and has gained notoriety through some good work but she has also made some mistakes in her conclusions as well as her judgment. IMO both Wheeler for the prosecution and Turley as a lawyer for the defense have established themselves as worth listening to by those interested. If you disagree in principle that the defense should be heard then I think you have disqualified yourself from sitting on any jury. If you disagree with Turley in this particular case then you have simply chosen to go with the conclusion or arguments of one side versus the other but have not established your conclusion as inarguable, IMO. Sorry about all the stating of the obvious but if you just get angry any time your position is questioned then sorry for you too.
The alleged misconduct of the FBI [as well as that of the CIA, NSA, etc etc] which I believe to be an established fact and about which their history offers no defense is, IMO, a much more dangerous act of affectively interfering in the politics of our nation than anything attributed to Flynn, whom I very much oppose for a number of good reasons. I was not a Hillary supporter but came to despise Flynn even more than before as part of the rot in our politics when he led the chant to "Lock her up" but I also do not support a chant of lock him up based on the charge against him in this case. He probably deserves to do time for his dealings with Turkey.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/21/2020 - 11:04am
Tell me how a guy who pleads guilty *two times* to lying, and then submits no new reasons should then withdraw from his plea, with an Attorney General friendly to the president running interference and having the DoJ flip 180 degrees?
Tell me how our intelligence services are not allowed to question an incoming National Security Advisor who's conducting his own foreign policy & coordinating between the campaign and our country's biggest enemy?
But nice trying a "both sides do it" excuse. So was it ok for Cohen to pass payoffs for Trump's fuckbunny despite established campaign law? Ok for Russians to hack DNC emails and then coordinate with the Russians and campaign? What other part of US law is fungible?
This isn't 2 competing theories of law - it's Mafia ever-shifting-ezcuse vs established precedent.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/21/2020 - 2:00pm
If these weren't such weird times, this obvious corrupt & criminal behavior wouldn't get a lick of support. Nor do similar cases that don't involve Friends of the President. At least 1 Harvard Law professor gets it:
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/21/2020 - 4:04pm
We've had decades now of "lawyers on one side" like Judicial Watch pull incredibly dishonest hijinks while still holding on to their law license (if you consider Clinton lost his law license for perceived misreprenting his actions to a judge, and now we have experts like Stone, Manafort & Flynn make an art of repeat overt lying, and yet "lawyers" will defend dishonest behavior as long as it carries a R- in front. And then there are hack lawyers like Powell, who keep repeating the same failed shit over & over, no matter how many times the judge knocks their silliness down - just playing to the public arena.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/21/2020 - 6:07pm
And the Republicans fixed it so nothing will disqualify a nominee that Trump & cronies make - judges & high positions with gross violations & pathetically underqualified - but as long as they parrot the party cant, the captured journos & lawyers will fall in line.
Remember how worried they were about Biden's 50-year-old plagiarism? But here some lies in real time get a bye. How's that happen?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/21/2020 - 6:12pm
Flynn was about to be a central figure in the agencies that you note have used their authority toward corrupt ends in the past. Have you ruled out the possibility that the people investigating the Russian influence upon the election shared your concern?
The present administration declassifies what serves them and hides what does not. The DOJ needs to be added to your list of suspect agencies. That element is not identical to the legal issues in the Flynn case.
So I contest your idea that Wheeler is acting as prosecutor while Turley is defending Flynn. Wheeler separates the legal issues from the environment that brought the charges about while Turley conflates the two elements.
by moat on Thu, 05/21/2020 - 7:00pm
Marcy identifies lies & sloppiness with the truth. Until someone can show the same about her, it's not "he said/she said", it's a 1-sided shit show.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/21/2020 - 10:51pm
Long Marcy thread on Eli
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 6:33am
Honestly,I haven't ruled out anything regarding any of the various institutions in play.
Every government agency involved in any politically sensitive activity is automatically on my list of suspect agencies.
Substitute "any" for " The present" in that sentence and I completely agree.
I am a defender and fan of journalism by journalists that leads them to a conclusions and who support their case with good reporting and good analysis of where there findings lead them. I think the best conflation of different stories and pertinent histories of the story makers is being done by independent journalists. Wheeler is one of them who is, IMO,doing good work. Wheeler is not always right whether she largely is in this case or not. I think she mostly is. In the real world that we are living in, and discussing, I do not believe that the charges in question can be rationally looked at without considering the political environment that they are playing in and the political leanings of the * evidence* providers.
This whole discussion really is just academic to me, if that is the proper way to describe the various points I/we have made. I want the prick President we have, the one who too many of our countrymen chose to embrace for their own reasons, to be gone. Ultimately, and to oversimplify, I do not want Trump replaced by what he replaced which cannot be excluded from reasons why we are where we are. That said, I do not pretend to know the exact way, if there is a way, off of the bad course I believe we are on long term, But, that does not lead me to believe that any course less damaging than that which Trump leads us on is one that is good enough or that I should automatically embrace.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 2:02am
All very vague.
Why do you think Flynn was unfairly persecuted?
Why do you think it was ok for Flynn pre-office to be coordinating a workaround on sanctions with Kislyak and Trump?
What rights of investigation does the FBI have for intelligence leaks?
Can Flynn withdraw a guilty plea after pleading guilty twice, and if so, why? What evidence of railroading or unfairness do you see for a burly 30-year intelligence veteran?
Why was it ok for the Russians to hack the DNC and then leak out strategy papers via WikiLeaks?
Why has Syria dropped off your list of public concerns now that Obama's gone and Trump is helping ISIS?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 2:57am
Just can’t help yourself, can you. Your Gish Gallop, a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments, is tiresome. Regarding your first five questions, I don't feel like galloping after your bouncing ball. Regarding your final off-topic question though, one with a smear by implication, are you seriously suggesting that I have not commented on and linked to issues regarding Syria in the last three and a half years?
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 4:12pm
I have 2 big DoJ threads + responding to you, though you just post your Turley & Greenwald stuff, & ignore any refutations.
Your Syria stuff is still focused on 1 gas attack, and ignoring the much larger atrocities, including ISIS freed up again by Trump. Still fetishising over some spurious US gov wrongdoing and ignoring all the Putin/Assad/Ereogan madness because only complaint say about Obama/Hillary truly makes you happy.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 6:09pm
Lulu, where was I (or Marcy largely) inaccurate?
Just 1 - forget the rest of "the Gish".
And this DoJ story + Russiagate is our most important - that's where I put comments and evidence
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/23/2020 - 1:01am
If there is a long term way to countervail against the more corrupt influences of our polity, it will include methods that resist the revision of history as an instrument for gaining power. History of any kind is influenced by the perspective and values of those who would narrate it. The only thing keeping it from collapsing into personal fictions is the shared world of actual events where some things happened and others did not.
Without that reality principle, there is no way to formulate something like the manufacture of consent. If there is no discriminating horizon between propaganda and the real, then neither is possible. To go that far requires leaving the country of Chomsky and entering the territory of Baudrillard where the Real is dead. For Baudrillard, there are no scandals. There are no differences between what Obama's and Trump's people did. It does not matter if Flynn was wrongly charged or not.
Time to fire up a Gitanes and aim smoke at the ceiling fan.
by moat on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 12:53pm
You do have a proper smoking, n'est-ce pas?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 1:11pm
I agree with everything you say here, as I understand it, except that I don't know anything about Baudrillard so I will just take your word on that part. One thing about my agreement though that I want to make clear is that when new facts are found about our history, facts as things that actually happened and which disprove some common perception of history, then that history should be re-written. Hiding or ignoring or distorting parts of history, or giving credence to definitively disproved history to support an argument or to push a narrative can be part of an affective way of weaponizing history. I believe I often see that. Do you believe you ever see that?
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 4:48pm
History should be corrected by evidence that previous narratives are incorrect. What counts as evidence in that regard is the critical issue. The link to Baudrillard's text was provided to show what giving up on evidence looks like; When every claim is a product of a deeper crime, then arguing about details is the continuance of the crime.
But I am not arguing for or against that point of view. I bring it up to introduce the idea of scale into the discussion of what is evidence. You have said that you are inclined to view all accounts of what happened in regards to the 2016 election as colored by the motivations of the agents in the agencies. As a matter of scale, that perspective could either mean an inclination to do something on the basis of a set of biases or a determined effort to bring about an end at whatever cost. One has to move to the Baudrillard end of the spectrum to make differences of that kind immaterial to what is going on.
Everybody who does not want to go that far needs a fulcrum point of leverage, an idea of sufficient reason to affirm or deny the accounts that are given.
So, where is that fulcrum point in the issue under discussion?
by moat on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 6:01pm
I don't know where the fulcrum is. I do know that real life, as you alluded to earlier, has convinced me that some things can be accepted as fact using a very strict definition of the word. In between those facts there are the various shades of gray areas where I make weighted judgments as to what I can believe with what confidence.
You say: " As a matter of scale, that perspective could either mean an inclination to do something on the basis of a set of biases or a determined effort to bring about an end at whatever cost." Thanks for that explanation. It cannot help but bring the current Presidential campaign to mind. Voting for someone who ate boiled babies might be a line I couldn't cross but is that the end of the spectrum that we find ourselves on, the end where we would vote for someone who did eat baby legs in order to bring about the end of Trump. I don't intend to avoid the truth as I see it to justify my decision to vote for Biden even though he participated from a position of power in decisions that got plenty of babies boiled. I guess I'll just consider him the lesser evil because I don't really believe he would eat them.
Thanks for your thought provoking comments.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 7:04pm
Let's talk about the "gray areas."
I am confused when you talk about who you would vote for. I would elect a German Shepard over Trump should the occasion arise; Any German Shepard.
I thought the matter being discussed was whether a rational person could sort out the claims made by the Trump and Obama administrations regarding the Russian influence in the last election.
Where are the gray areas in that discussion?
by moat on Fri, 05/22/2020 - 7:41pm
Lulu's still chasing US responsibility for Syria and Libya and Ukraine down his rabbit hole, and ignoring all the other participants.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/23/2020 - 12:57am
It's hard to let go of the ideation of 'merican exceptionalism and 'merican empire, lefties are often the biggest believers, but unlike the MAGA folks, they don't like the idea? Hard to let go of the thought that the U.S. hegemon isn't behind everything and controlling everything, cause thinking different means chaos? It's an orderly view of the world, same as ultra-conservatives would like things to be. No change, alwasy same playas.
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/23/2020 - 1:35am