The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Real Crimes of Russiagate
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump’s campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?

And until last week, the answer was “no.”

As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians … there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. … There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark.”

Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians — in anticipation of promised dirt on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full Pinocchio for four days.

And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they want it — Russiagate.

This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.

Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as possible from their agenda — breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.

Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S. government designed to damage this president.

Just days into Trump’s presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia’s ambassador forced the firing of Flynn.

An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled Israeli intelligence sources and methods.

Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only violations of the leaker’s solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law.

Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek. First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.

The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly.

Consider the original Russiagate offense.

Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this “Tinker to Evers to Chance” double-play combination?

The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an “act of war” against “our democracy,” the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders.

If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they publish the fruits of that crime?

Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia’s hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1?

Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality.

Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted.

ORDER IT NOW

Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues’ “sources” as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.

And thus does democracy die in darkness.

Do the American people not have a “right to know” who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?

Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?

Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.

People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Donald Trump, Russia 
Hide 70 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it will sink in.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Gg Mo
    Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)
    , @Carlton Meyer
    Mr. Buchanan is a great guy, but I suspect he still wastes much time reading print propaganda and is influenced. All the real evidence shows that DNC's Seth Rich leaked it to Wikileaks, something lefty youtuber Jimmy Dore explains here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKawchvHsEg

    And we know Dorr is correct because the "Washington Post" immediately launched a smear campaign to "discredit" Dorr and other real newsmen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVMuR38FO0
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/the-real-crimes-of-russiagate/#comment-1937911
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. There is nothing there.

    Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever.

    Trump can do other things.

    People will lose interest in this.

    This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup.

    There’s nothing remotely like this here.

    1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with it.

    2. If Russians didn’t do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on nothing.

    Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real.

    Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he’s over-thinking this. It’s like dejavu to him.

    Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists.

    But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Minnesota Mary
    "Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real."


    They will find Fools Gold.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. vinteuil says:

    Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can’t bring himself to doubt the integrity of America’s “intelligence” services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq’s non-existent WMD’s.

    “Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.”

    What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The sad fact is that Pat was in the Reagan administration when they were doling out disinformation daily on the strength of the Russian military, the Russians supposedly knowingly shooting down a commercial air liner (KAL 007), what was going on in central America, and what was going on in the ME just to name a few things. So he knows how the intelligence services distort and create fake news to further an agenda. You would think that someone with such firsthand knowledge would be skeptical of anything coming from them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

    No it’s not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Randal says:

    Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo.

    There’s still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the “Russia influencing the US election” black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics.

    Did Donald Trump’s campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?

    Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There’s no evidence Russia’s government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump’s rival is not evidence of collusion in hacking.

    Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

    Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded zealots.

    If there was any attempt by Russia to “influence” the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries’ (including Russia’s) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular.

    If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious “influencing” of US politics by foreign “agents of influence” in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.

    That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about foreign influence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "If there was any attempt by Russia to “influence” the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned."

    It's much more complicated than you think. There are several investigations taking place that are seemingly unrelated. Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn't hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance. Everyone wants the smoking gun now, but that is not how it works. One slowly builds their case. To what extent is Trump's involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there. What exactly remains to be seen.

    Talk about "spin"...

    https://www.google.com/search?q=the+morphing+of+the+russiagate+narrative+as+per+hannity&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8sKaruJPVAhWH1IMKHaBODUgQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1270&bih=725#imgrc=mafUlGEYIBgNMM:
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Gg Mo says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it will sink in.

    Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)"

    Patently false. KimDotCom stated his story was Fake News.

    http://gizmodo.com/kim-dotcom-says-fbi-file-about-seth-rich-is-fake-but-h-1795646891
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Gg Mo says:

    Yipes ! What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for Alzheimers ?
    He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn’t seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

    It already didn’t end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse. At this stage I don’s see any “better” scenarios. The truth has been revealed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. “Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about.”

    Pat,

    That’s only possibly true if you’re speaking about someone who gets all their news from the MSM.

    I don’t. Indeed, the more irresponsible the MSM seems regarding the Russian Ate My Homework meme the less I watch it.

    I suspect many other Americans are the same way. So, in a way, the MSM is committing suicide. Pat, that doesn’t particularly trouble me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

    Well, duh. It doesn’t end. It continues until the country is destroyed. Not much further to go, from the perspective of the once-productive American who has been forced into SS-disability slavery by the rentier class’ importation of millions upon millions of illegals and “refugees”. The rich are getting richer than ever imagined in their wildest dreams.

    To the recipient of the last welfare check …. You there! Turn out the lights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Corvinus says:
    @Gg Mo
    Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)

    “Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)”

    Patently false. KimDotCom stated his story was Fake News.

    http://gizmodo.com/kim-dotcom-says-fbi-file-about-seth-rich-is-fake-but-h-1795646891

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Corvinus says:
    @Randal
    Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo.

    There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals - those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics.


    Did Donald Trump’s campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?
     
    Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in hacking.

    Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
     
    Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded zealots.

    If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular.

    If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.

    That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about foreign influence.

    “If there was any attempt by Russia to “influence” the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned.”

    It’s much more complicated than you think. There are several investigations taking place that are seemingly unrelated. Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn’t hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance. Everyone wants the smoking gun now, but that is not how it works. One slowly builds their case. To what extent is Trump’s involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there. What exactly remains to be seen.

    Talk about “spin”…

    https://www.google.com/search?q=the+morphing+of+the+russiagate+narrative+as+per+hannity&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8sKaruJPVAhWH1IMKHaBODUgQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1270&bih=725#imgrc=mafUlGEYIBgNMM:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    It’s much more complicated than you think.
     
    I doubt that.

    Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn’t hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance.
     
    No, they know they don't need to build a watertight case in order to serve their establishment masters well and make their bones for life, just create enough smoke to allow impeachment, with the favourable winds of an overwhelmingly compliant and cynically dishonest media.

    This is at the point where politics and the law intersect and the law can be twisted to suit the political needs of the moment if sufficient political power can be brought to bear, so there's certainly no guarantee they won't succeed even though the possibility of any actual malfeasance is pretty much zero.

    To what extent is Trump’s involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there. What exactly remains to be seen.
     
    No evidence of any involvement in anything of any significance whatsoever so far, of course.
    , @MarkinLA
    One slowly builds their case.

    Nonsense that the length of this BS means anything. Remember McMartin? That took a long time too.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. It is Whatevergate.

    It’s not an investigation driven by evidence but by an agenda.

    A real investigation is based on some evidence, even if scant, of something that seems wrong.

    A BS investigation fixes the target and then keeps digging for dirt in case ‘something’ might be found.

    Imagine a murder suspect. We don’t know for sure he did it but there is some evidence, witnesses, and connections.

    But imagine someone who has no ties to a murder but is raked over the coals for any connection.

    The ONLY thing Trump did was call for better relations with Russia. There is more evidence of connections between Russians and Hillary than between Trump and Russians. And of course, the real collusion for both parties are with Israel, but we are told Israel is our greatest friend, so that’s okay.

    Also, this ‘investigation’ is less about bringing Trump down — impossible as there is no evidence to support the claim of collusion — than about driving a wedge between US and Russia to sabotage diplomacy. By making Russia out to be the Evil Empire, the powers-that-be are trying to make it difficult for Trump to deal with Russia. Jews hate Russia as a great power that became relatively independent of globalism and its queertianity homomania, which is used as proxy of globalism like Christianity was once the moral proxy of Western Imperialism.

    With ‘Russia hacking’ in the air, anything constructive Trump does with Russia will be seen as ‘collusion’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    this ‘investigation’ is less about bringing Trump down — impossible as there is no evidence to support the claim of collusion — than about driving a wedge between US and Russia to sabotage diplomacy. By making Russia out to be the Evil Empire, the powers-that-be are trying to make it difficult for Trump to deal with Russia.
     
    It's more than that: Tom Cotton spoke at CSIS yesterday denouncing Russia as a great threat to US and to the "international order." Specifically, Cotton, formerly leader of the infamous letter to Iran that in an attempt to derail JCPOA, claimed that Russia is in violation of INF treaty; that we must remember that Putin is a KGB thug and always will be (no mention that George H W Bush was head of thuggish CIA before he became president and waged an unnecessary war on Iraq); that there is no difference between the old Soviet Union and Putin's Russia; that Putin was disregarding treaty demands with impunity; and that the US must ramp up pressure on Russia to comply with treaty or US would renounce the treaty.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRt_RzGN2wA

    Further, Cotton said that while the missile agreements w/ Russia did not permit USA to develop certain missile capacities, it did not place any constraints on USA allies. Therefore, Cagey Cotton said USA should urge its allies to beef up their missile technology, and that USA should invest $100billion in research in missiles for defense as well as offense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Priss Factor
    There is nothing there.

    Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever.

    Trump can do other things.

    People will lose interest in this.

    This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup.

    There's nothing remotely like this here.

    1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with it.

    2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on nothing.

    Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real.

    Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like dejavu to him.

    Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists.

    But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.

    “Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real.”

    They will find Fools Gold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Perhaps the story of the boy who cried wolf will now become the story of the media that cried Russians!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

    What is the evidence that this actually happened?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Don't hold your breath waiting for a straightforward response, especially from Mr. Buchanan. Does anyone recall him (cf., Dinh, Giraldi) ever amending or defending a challenged assertion here on this website?

    I'm curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers. I suspect that venerables who have a following - like Mr. Buchanan - are not only condoned, but never questioned.

    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Randal says:
    @Corvinus
    "If there was any attempt by Russia to “influence” the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned."

    It's much more complicated than you think. There are several investigations taking place that are seemingly unrelated. Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn't hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance. Everyone wants the smoking gun now, but that is not how it works. One slowly builds their case. To what extent is Trump's involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there. What exactly remains to be seen.

    Talk about "spin"...

    https://www.google.com/search?q=the+morphing+of+the+russiagate+narrative+as+per+hannity&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8sKaruJPVAhWH1IMKHaBODUgQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1270&bih=725#imgrc=mafUlGEYIBgNMM:

    It’s much more complicated than you think.

    I doubt that.

    Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn’t hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance.

    No, they know they don’t need to build a watertight case in order to serve their establishment masters well and make their bones for life, just create enough smoke to allow impeachment, with the favourable winds of an overwhelmingly compliant and cynically dishonest media.

    This is at the point where politics and the law intersect and the law can be twisted to suit the political needs of the moment if sufficient political power can be brought to bear, so there’s certainly no guarantee they won’t succeed even though the possibility of any actual malfeasance is pretty much zero.

    To what extent is Trump’s involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there. What exactly remains to be seen.

    No evidence of any involvement in anything of any significance whatsoever so far, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I doubt that."

    Exactly what people said in Watergate, which took years to uncover all of the layers.

    "No, they know they don’t need to build a watertight case in order to serve their establishment masters well and make their bones for life, just create enough smoke to allow impeachment, with the favourable winds of an overwhelmingly compliant and cynically dishonest media."

    Yes, the prosecutors must have their "ducks in a row", who are serving what they believe is justice, and not "establishment masters". For impeachment to happen, there must be a mountain of hard core evidence especially in this political climate.

    "This is at the point where politics and the law intersect and the law can be twisted to suit the political needs of the moment if sufficient political power can be brought to bear..."

    Red herring.

    "so there’s certainly no guarantee they won’t succeed even though the possibility of any actual malfeasance is pretty much zero."

    You nor I actually know for sure the extent of the alleged improprieties. So for you make that claim is arrogance and ignorance. In the end, nothing may come out of it, and everything that the investigators did was for naught. On the other hand, there may be significant charges brought up, with people going to prison. It will take months, probably years, for us to truly know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Ryan says:

    Two big differences between Trump and Nixon. One, Nixon was way, way more popular than Trump. Two, there was only one media in Nixon’s day, whereas now there are myriads. If Mueller comes out with charges weaponized autists will have them picked apart and shown to be bogus within hours. And there will be no way to stop Trump’s supporters from knowing about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "If Mueller comes out with charges weaponized autists will have them picked apart and shown to be bogus within hours."

    You've been reading way too much fiction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Renoman says:

    I sincerely hope that Americans are not as stupid as their Government and their media think they are. It certainly looks like it. We should be doing business with Russia not squabbling with them over teenie tiny bullshit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Corvinus says:
    @Randal

    It’s much more complicated than you think.
     
    I doubt that.

    Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn’t hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance.
     
    No, they know they don't need to build a watertight case in order to serve their establishment masters well and make their bones for life, just create enough smoke to allow impeachment, with the favourable winds of an overwhelmingly compliant and cynically dishonest media.

    This is at the point where politics and the law intersect and the law can be twisted to suit the political needs of the moment if sufficient political power can be brought to bear, so there's certainly no guarantee they won't succeed even though the possibility of any actual malfeasance is pretty much zero.

    To what extent is Trump’s involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there. What exactly remains to be seen.
     
    No evidence of any involvement in anything of any significance whatsoever so far, of course.

    “I doubt that.”

    Exactly what people said in Watergate, which took years to uncover all of the layers.

    “No, they know they don’t need to build a watertight case in order to serve their establishment masters well and make their bones for life, just create enough smoke to allow impeachment, with the favourable winds of an overwhelmingly compliant and cynically dishonest media.”

    Yes, the prosecutors must have their “ducks in a row”, who are serving what they believe is justice, and not “establishment masters”. For impeachment to happen, there must be a mountain of hard core evidence especially in this political climate.

    “This is at the point where politics and the law intersect and the law can be twisted to suit the political needs of the moment if sufficient political power can be brought to bear…”

    Red herring.

    “so there’s certainly no guarantee they won’t succeed even though the possibility of any actual malfeasance is pretty much zero.”

    You nor I actually know for sure the extent of the alleged improprieties. So for you make that claim is arrogance and ignorance. In the end, nothing may come out of it, and everything that the investigators did was for naught. On the other hand, there may be significant charges brought up, with people going to prison. It will take months, probably years, for us to truly know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Yarbles

    You nor I actually know for sure the extent of the alleged improprieties. So for you make that claim is arrogance and ignorance. In the end, nothing may come out of it, and everything that the investigators did was for naught.
     
    Yes, you really don't know, Corvinus. But you really believe, right? Cause you just said...

    Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn’t hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance.
     
    So you really really want to convince others that Trump colluded with those evil Russkies. Why if you don't know and only believe?

    Let me guess, you didn't vote for Trump.
    , @schmenz
    After umpteen years hearing about Watergate all I could see about that overwrought incident was much ado about very, very little.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Corvinus says:
    @Ryan
    Two big differences between Trump and Nixon. One, Nixon was way, way more popular than Trump. Two, there was only one media in Nixon's day, whereas now there are myriads. If Mueller comes out with charges weaponized autists will have them picked apart and shown to be bogus within hours. And there will be no way to stop Trump's supporters from knowing about it.

    “If Mueller comes out with charges weaponized autists will have them picked apart and shown to be bogus within hours.”

    You’ve been reading way too much fiction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. KenH says:

    Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

    There he goes again. The fake news media made that claim with little compelling evidence. Much stronger evidence points to Bernie Bro (((Seth Rich))) pilfering the incriminating DNC e-mails and funneling them to Wikileaks.

    Pat is losing credibility by continuing to repeat and buttress the claim of “Russian hacking”. He must desperately be seeking an atta boy and validation from the utterly corrupt U.S. establishment.

    I believe that Mueller and his band of Trump hating Democrat lawyers won’t come away empty handed and will fabricate something to create a basis for impeachment or barring that, something to turn public opinion against Trump and ensure he’s only a one term president.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Minnesota Mary
    "Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real."


    They will find Fools Gold.

    Perhaps the story of the boy who cried wolf will now become the story of the media that cried Russians!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Priss Factor
    It is Whatevergate.

    It's not an investigation driven by evidence but by an agenda.

    A real investigation is based on some evidence, even if scant, of something that seems wrong.

    A BS investigation fixes the target and then keeps digging for dirt in case 'something' might be found.

    Imagine a murder suspect. We don't know for sure he did it but there is some evidence, witnesses, and connections.

    But imagine someone who has no ties to a murder but is raked over the coals for any connection.

    The ONLY thing Trump did was call for better relations with Russia. There is more evidence of connections between Russians and Hillary than between Trump and Russians. And of course, the real collusion for both parties are with Israel, but we are told Israel is our greatest friend, so that's okay.

    Also, this 'investigation' is less about bringing Trump down -- impossible as there is no evidence to support the claim of collusion -- than about driving a wedge between US and Russia to sabotage diplomacy. By making Russia out to be the Evil Empire, the powers-that-be are trying to make it difficult for Trump to deal with Russia. Jews hate Russia as a great power that became relatively independent of globalism and its queertianity homomania, which is used as proxy of globalism like Christianity was once the moral proxy of Western Imperialism.

    With 'Russia hacking' in the air, anything constructive Trump does with Russia will be seen as 'collusion'.

    this ‘investigation’ is less about bringing Trump down — impossible as there is no evidence to support the claim of collusion — than about driving a wedge between US and Russia to sabotage diplomacy. By making Russia out to be the Evil Empire, the powers-that-be are trying to make it difficult for Trump to deal with Russia.

    It’s more than that: Tom Cotton spoke at CSIS yesterday denouncing Russia as a great threat to US and to the “international order.” Specifically, Cotton, formerly leader of the infamous letter to Iran that in an attempt to derail JCPOA, claimed that Russia is in violation of INF treaty; that we must remember that Putin is a KGB thug and always will be (no mention that George H W Bush was head of thuggish CIA before he became president and waged an unnecessary war on Iraq); that there is no difference between the old Soviet Union and Putin’s Russia; that Putin was disregarding treaty demands with impunity; and that the US must ramp up pressure on Russia to comply with treaty or US would renounce the treaty.

    Further, Cotton said that while the missile agreements w/ Russia did not permit USA to develop certain missile capacities, it did not place any constraints on USA allies. Therefore, Cagey Cotton said USA should urge its allies to beef up their missile technology, and that USA should invest $100billion in research in missiles for defense as well as offense.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    EDIT:

    " $100 BILLION"

    should be $100 MILLION


    PS Poland is among those allies that Cotton proposes be drawn into US manufactured conflict with Russia.

    deja vu all over again.

    Are the Poles going to demonstrate that they've learned from history?

    PS 2: What malign genie motivates Tom Cotton? Did his mother drop him on his head, or swing him around by his scrawny neck? He's got a serious case of Hate driving his policy proposals. sicko.

    , @schmenz
    Cotton should be in an asylum, with padded walls. Where on earth do these idiots come from?
    , @MInnesota Mary
    Prophecy----When the Neocons eliminate Trump from office, and Pence becomes President, Pence will pick Sen. Tom Cotton to be his Vice-President.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @SolontoCroesus

    this ‘investigation’ is less about bringing Trump down — impossible as there is no evidence to support the claim of collusion — than about driving a wedge between US and Russia to sabotage diplomacy. By making Russia out to be the Evil Empire, the powers-that-be are trying to make it difficult for Trump to deal with Russia.
     
    It's more than that: Tom Cotton spoke at CSIS yesterday denouncing Russia as a great threat to US and to the "international order." Specifically, Cotton, formerly leader of the infamous letter to Iran that in an attempt to derail JCPOA, claimed that Russia is in violation of INF treaty; that we must remember that Putin is a KGB thug and always will be (no mention that George H W Bush was head of thuggish CIA before he became president and waged an unnecessary war on Iraq); that there is no difference between the old Soviet Union and Putin's Russia; that Putin was disregarding treaty demands with impunity; and that the US must ramp up pressure on Russia to comply with treaty or US would renounce the treaty.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRt_RzGN2wA

    Further, Cotton said that while the missile agreements w/ Russia did not permit USA to develop certain missile capacities, it did not place any constraints on USA allies. Therefore, Cagey Cotton said USA should urge its allies to beef up their missile technology, and that USA should invest $100billion in research in missiles for defense as well as offense.

    EDIT:

    ” $100 BILLION”

    should be $100 MILLION

    PS Poland is among those allies that Cotton proposes be drawn into US manufactured conflict with Russia.

    deja vu all over again.

    Are the Poles going to demonstrate that they’ve learned from history?

    PS 2: What malign genie motivates Tom Cotton? Did his mother drop him on his head, or swing him around by his scrawny neck? He’s got a serious case of Hate driving his policy proposals. sicko.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Rurik says: • Website

    What malign genie motivates Tom Cotton?

    the Fiend

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    What malign genie motivates Tom Cotton?

    the Fiend
     
    Awwww, I like the guy. He's fun to watch. A darkly evil and urbane version of Yosemite Sam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @ben tillman

    Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
     
    What is the evidence that this actually happened?

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for a straightforward response, especially from Mr. Buchanan. Does anyone recall him (cf., Dinh, Giraldi) ever amending or defending a challenged assertion here on this website?

    I’m curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers. I suspect that venerables who have a following – like Mr. Buchanan – are not only condoned, but never questioned.

    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {I’m curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers. I suspect that venerables who have a following – like Mr. Buchanan – are not only condoned, but never questioned.}

    Are you serious?

    You think publishers are going to vet every sentence of their columnists?
    What, they have nothing better to do with their lives?
    Publishers such as Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell,etc. provide a free forum for columnists _and_ posters to express views.
    Nobody is forced to visit either unz.com or lewrockwell.com
    Take it or leave it.

    Caveat Emptor.
    (except nobody is _buying_ anything: it's all free)
    , @utu
    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.


    I am glad you said it. I concur.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik

    What malign genie motivates Tom Cotton?
     
    the Fiend

    What malign genie motivates Tom Cotton?

    the Fiend

    Awwww, I like the guy. He’s fun to watch. A darkly evil and urbane version of Yosemite Sam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Awwww, I like the guy. He’s fun to watch
     
    not so much

    http://www.britainfirst.tv/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/George-Soros.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Rurik says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    What malign genie motivates Tom Cotton?

    the Fiend
     
    Awwww, I like the guy. He's fun to watch. A darkly evil and urbane version of Yosemite Sam.

    Awwww, I like the guy. He’s fun to watch

    not so much

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Corvinus
    "I doubt that."

    Exactly what people said in Watergate, which took years to uncover all of the layers.

    "No, they know they don’t need to build a watertight case in order to serve their establishment masters well and make their bones for life, just create enough smoke to allow impeachment, with the favourable winds of an overwhelmingly compliant and cynically dishonest media."

    Yes, the prosecutors must have their "ducks in a row", who are serving what they believe is justice, and not "establishment masters". For impeachment to happen, there must be a mountain of hard core evidence especially in this political climate.

    "This is at the point where politics and the law intersect and the law can be twisted to suit the political needs of the moment if sufficient political power can be brought to bear..."

    Red herring.

    "so there’s certainly no guarantee they won’t succeed even though the possibility of any actual malfeasance is pretty much zero."

    You nor I actually know for sure the extent of the alleged improprieties. So for you make that claim is arrogance and ignorance. In the end, nothing may come out of it, and everything that the investigators did was for naught. On the other hand, there may be significant charges brought up, with people going to prison. It will take months, probably years, for us to truly know.

    You nor I actually know for sure the extent of the alleged improprieties. So for you make that claim is arrogance and ignorance. In the end, nothing may come out of it, and everything that the investigators did was for naught.

    Yes, you really don’t know, Corvinus. But you really believe, right? Cause you just said…

    Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn’t hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance.

    So you really really want to convince others that Trump colluded with those evil Russkies. Why if you don’t know and only believe?

    Let me guess, you didn’t vote for Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yes, you really don’t know, Corvinus. But you really believe, right? Cause you just said…

    I believe that there may or may not be something there, but apparently law enforcement has done their homework and therefore an investigation is warranted. And those investigating are going to do what they think is necessary to "win", just like Trump's lawyers will also pull out all the stops to "win".

    "So you really really want to convince others that Trump colluded with those evil Russkies. Why if you don’t know and only believe?"

    I want to convince others that we do not truly know the extent of their relationship and whether or not there was "collusion".

    "Let me guess, you didn’t vote for Trump."

    And I didn't vote for Hillary. BOTH lacked the requisite skills to be president.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Avery says:
    @anonymous
    Don't hold your breath waiting for a straightforward response, especially from Mr. Buchanan. Does anyone recall him (cf., Dinh, Giraldi) ever amending or defending a challenged assertion here on this website?

    I'm curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers. I suspect that venerables who have a following - like Mr. Buchanan - are not only condoned, but never questioned.

    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.

    {I’m curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers. I suspect that venerables who have a following – like Mr. Buchanan – are not only condoned, but never questioned.}

    Are you serious?

    You think publishers are going to vet every sentence of their columnists?
    What, they have nothing better to do with their lives?
    Publishers such as Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell,etc. provide a free forum for columnists _and_ posters to express views.
    Nobody is forced to visit either unz.com or lewrockwell.com
    Take it or leave it.

    Caveat Emptor.
    (except nobody is _buying_ anything: it’s all free)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Corvinus says:
    @Paul Yarbles

    You nor I actually know for sure the extent of the alleged improprieties. So for you make that claim is arrogance and ignorance. In the end, nothing may come out of it, and everything that the investigators did was for naught.
     
    Yes, you really don't know, Corvinus. But you really believe, right? Cause you just said...

    Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn’t hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance.
     
    So you really really want to convince others that Trump colluded with those evil Russkies. Why if you don't know and only believe?

    Let me guess, you didn't vote for Trump.

    “Yes, you really don’t know, Corvinus. But you really believe, right? Cause you just said…

    I believe that there may or may not be something there, but apparently law enforcement has done their homework and therefore an investigation is warranted. And those investigating are going to do what they think is necessary to “win”, just like Trump’s lawyers will also pull out all the stops to “win”.

    “So you really really want to convince others that Trump colluded with those evil Russkies. Why if you don’t know and only believe?”

    I want to convince others that we do not truly know the extent of their relationship and whether or not there was “collusion”.

    “Let me guess, you didn’t vote for Trump.”

    And I didn’t vote for Hillary. BOTH lacked the requisite skills to be president.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Yarbles

    I believe that there may or may not be something there
     
    You are being disingenuous when you pretend to be unbiased about President Trump's Russian collusion. One just has to read some of your earlier comments to see that you are pushing not for a "we don't have all the information so let's wait-and-see" approach, but for advocacy that President Trump and/or his people are obviously guilty of collusion.

    To what extent is Trump’s involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there.
     
    I, Corvinus, state that there is something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    You have no clue how much there is to this ongoing investigation. Follow Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor. There is so much rot by Trump’s team it will make your head spin.
     
    President Trump's team are a bunch of liars, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    “The same applies to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. There is no need to wait months or perhaps a couple of years to know this is Fake News.”

    That would again be ignorance. The same arguments were made by the Nixon Administration against the media when they were investigating his malfeasance. Furthermore, you have several high profile attorneys who are putting their careers on hold to be part of the Mueller investigation team.

     

    President Nixon was guilty and his administration used the same arguments, therefore President Trump and/or his people are are guilty (of something).

    Bigwig lawyers don't get involved when there's nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).


    “Ok. So tell us Corvy, do you think the Russia-gate narrative, currently being propagated by the media, is fake or real?”

    There assuredly is something taking place here, more than what the media is reporting, given that there is a special counsel, the FBI, and several state AG’s investigating different avenues, from RICO to spying to tampering to lying. People want the smoking gun, they want the evidence to immediately come out directly linking Trump. In such an investigation, however, you start at the bottom and work your way to the top. What is telling that is that Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, a prolific Supreme Court advocate who oversees the Justice Department’s criminal appellate docket, is on board. People of his caliber do not accept such a position to “lose”

    ...

    What exactly, I’m not sure.

     

    Again, bigwig lawyers don't get involved when there's nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    And yeah, you're not sure exactly, but you know there's something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    On and on it goes. Give me a flerking break!

    It's obvious that you don't like President Trump and want to see him taken down. And you're hoping that this Russian stuff is just the thing to do it. You're actively pushing this for heaven's sake. I would hope that not many here are fooled by your phony "I'm just taking a cool objective look at the facts" garbage.

    Please be honest and admit that every day you pray for the impeachment of President Trump. Can you admit this?

    , @RadicalCenter
    I'm sure you know but must emphasize: the job and duty of prosecutors is not to "win" in the sense of securing an indictment and then a conviction. Their job and duty is to pursue the truth, which may call for never seeking an indictment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. MarkinLA says:
    @vinteuil
    Pat Buchanan does his best - but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services - even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's.

    "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks."

    What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps?

    The sad fact is that Pat was in the Reagan administration when they were doling out disinformation daily on the strength of the Russian military, the Russians supposedly knowingly shooting down a commercial air liner (KAL 007), what was going on in central America, and what was going on in the ME just to name a few things. So he knows how the intelligence services distort and create fake news to further an agenda. You would think that someone with such firsthand knowledge would be skeptical of anything coming from them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus
    "If there was any attempt by Russia to “influence” the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned."

    It's much more complicated than you think. There are several investigations taking place that are seemingly unrelated. Mueller and company are playing to win. He didn't hand select top lawyers in their fields without there being substantial evidence of apparent malfeasance. Everyone wants the smoking gun now, but that is not how it works. One slowly builds their case. To what extent is Trump's involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there. What exactly remains to be seen.

    Talk about "spin"...

    https://www.google.com/search?q=the+morphing+of+the+russiagate+narrative+as+per+hannity&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8sKaruJPVAhWH1IMKHaBODUgQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1270&bih=725#imgrc=mafUlGEYIBgNMM:

    One slowly builds their case.

    Nonsense that the length of this BS means anything. Remember McMartin? That took a long time too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Nonsense that the length of this BS means anything. Remember McMartin? That took a long time too."

    Actually, with the potential of this case to be gigantic in scope, with dozens of people involved the length of time for the prosecution AND Trump's team to get their ducks in a row decidedly matters here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Yes, I am serious.

    Ron Unz didn’t just erect a bathroom wall and leave a box of crayons. Of course he doesn’t own every statement made by his roster of authors. But I would like to think that someone who runs a website with a good reputation expects those authors to meet standards of credibility, if for no other reason than to build and maintain thoughtful, critically thinking readership. If you or I were to submit an article, then Mr. Unz or someone he trusts would first read it, wouldn’t he? And I expect that someone at Unz read this piece of Mr. Buchanan’s, too. What happens between that point and publication is something I wonder about.

    As far as I can tell, you’re merely a voluminous commenter in no position to answer my questions about how this really works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Why don't you create a site and run it the way you think it should be run, instead of bitching about something you are getting free.


    {As far as I can tell, you’re merely a voluminous commenter in no position to answer my questions about how this really works.}


    I am a somewhat frequent commenter, but hardly 'voluminous'.
    Do you know what the difference is?

    {I’m curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers.}

    I am sure Mr. Unz, and Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers will contact you directly to explain and seek your approval.
    Any minute now.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Sorry for butting in (not really) but it is a free speech site. Ron Unz does keep abreast of what transpires on this site to an amazing degree, especially when one considers that he also runs a successful business and that this is something like a hobby for him. He frequently chimes in when he disagrees or feels the need to inject something. Avery is also correct in pointing out that we pay nothing to use the site nor do we suffer from any advertising while here.

    Those contributors who do bother to respond to commenters increase their stock with readers here and the fact that Pat doesn't bother says a lot about him as does his repeating of blatant media propaganda and falsehoods, see my comment #1.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Corvinus
    "Yes, you really don’t know, Corvinus. But you really believe, right? Cause you just said…

    I believe that there may or may not be something there, but apparently law enforcement has done their homework and therefore an investigation is warranted. And those investigating are going to do what they think is necessary to "win", just like Trump's lawyers will also pull out all the stops to "win".

    "So you really really want to convince others that Trump colluded with those evil Russkies. Why if you don’t know and only believe?"

    I want to convince others that we do not truly know the extent of their relationship and whether or not there was "collusion".

    "Let me guess, you didn’t vote for Trump."

    And I didn't vote for Hillary. BOTH lacked the requisite skills to be president.

    I believe that there may or may not be something there

    You are being disingenuous when you pretend to be unbiased about President Trump’s Russian collusion. One just has to read some of your earlier comments to see that you are pushing not for a “we don’t have all the information so let’s wait-and-see” approach, but for advocacy that President Trump and/or his people are obviously guilty of collusion.

    To what extent is Trump’s involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there.

    I, Corvinus, state that there is something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    You have no clue how much there is to this ongoing investigation. Follow Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor. There is so much rot by Trump’s team it will make your head spin.

    President Trump’s team are a bunch of liars, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    “The same applies to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. There is no need to wait months or perhaps a couple of years to know this is Fake News.”

    That would again be ignorance. The same arguments were made by the Nixon Administration against the media when they were investigating his malfeasance. Furthermore, you have several high profile attorneys who are putting their careers on hold to be part of the Mueller investigation team.

    President Nixon was guilty and his administration used the same arguments, therefore President Trump and/or his people are are guilty (of something).

    Bigwig lawyers don’t get involved when there’s nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    “Ok. So tell us Corvy, do you think the Russia-gate narrative, currently being propagated by the media, is fake or real?”

    There assuredly is something taking place here, more than what the media is reporting, given that there is a special counsel, the FBI, and several state AG’s investigating different avenues, from RICO to spying to tampering to lying. People want the smoking gun, they want the evidence to immediately come out directly linking Trump. In such an investigation, however, you start at the bottom and work your way to the top. What is telling that is that Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, a prolific Supreme Court advocate who oversees the Justice Department’s criminal appellate docket, is on board. People of his caliber do not accept such a position to “lose”

    What exactly, I’m not sure.

    Again, bigwig lawyers don’t get involved when there’s nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    And yeah, you’re not sure exactly, but you know there’s something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    On and on it goes. Give me a flerking break!

    It’s obvious that you don’t like President Trump and want to see him taken down. And you’re hoping that this Russian stuff is just the thing to do it. You’re actively pushing this for heaven’s sake. I would hope that not many here are fooled by your phony “I’m just taking a cool objective look at the facts” garbage.

    Please be honest and admit that every day you pray for the impeachment of President Trump. Can you admit this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You are being disingenuous when you pretend to be unbiased about President Trump’s Russian collusion."

    I am biased in that no one knows for certain, one way or the other, what the Feds have or do not have.

    "One just has to read some of your earlier comments to see that you are pushing not for a “we don’t have all the information so let’s wait-and-see” approach, but for advocacy that President Trump and/or his people are obviously guilty of collusion."

    Please show me those earlier comments.

    "I, Corvinus, state that there is something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something)."

    Actually, it's "We, law enforcement, state that there has been illegal activity, so President Trump and/or members of his administration, are under investigation. It is up to a judge and/or jury to ascertain guilt or innocence". I, Corvinus, want to know if there is any merit to the accusations.

    "Again, bigwig lawyers don’t get involved when there’s nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something)."

    Of course bigwig lawyers get involved if something is there on BOTH sides. And President Trump and his group MAY be guilty of something.

    "And yeah, you’re not sure exactly, but you know there’s something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something)."

    No, YOU are assuming that I believe Trump is automatically guilty. Trigger warning on your part.

    "It’s obvious that you don’t like President Trump and want to see him taken down."

    I'm not a fan, but I'm also not a fan if the prosecution comes up with little or next to nothing or if Trump did indeed pull some illegal shenanigans. Again, this stuff is complicated and will take months or years.

    "And you’re hoping that this Russian stuff is just the thing to do it."

    I'm hoping for a resolution on the matter, however it plays out.

    "You’re actively pushing this for heaven’s sake. I would hope that not many here are fooled by your phony “I’m just taking a cool objective look at the facts” garbage."

    It's not an act. It's actually what I believe.

    "Please be honest and admit that every day you pray for the impeachment of President Trump. Can you admit this?"

    I pray for justice. Can you admit this?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Avery says:
    @anonymous
    Yes, I am serious.

    Ron Unz didn't just erect a bathroom wall and leave a box of crayons. Of course he doesn't own every statement made by his roster of authors. But I would like to think that someone who runs a website with a good reputation expects those authors to meet standards of credibility, if for no other reason than to build and maintain thoughtful, critically thinking readership. If you or I were to submit an article, then Mr. Unz or someone he trusts would first read it, wouldn't he? And I expect that someone at Unz read this piece of Mr. Buchanan's, too. What happens between that point and publication is something I wonder about.

    As far as I can tell, you're merely a voluminous commenter in no position to answer my questions about how this really works.

    Why don’t you create a site and run it the way you think it should be run, instead of bitching about something you are getting free.


    {As far as I can tell, you’re merely a voluminous commenter in no position to answer my questions about how this really works.}

    I am a somewhat frequent commenter, but hardly ‘voluminous’.
    Do you know what the difference is?

    {I’m curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers.}

    I am sure Mr. Unz, and Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers will contact you directly to explain and seek your approval.
    Any minute now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Don't be so modest - you're frequent AND voluminous. How many keystrokes have you expended here alone, playing comment constable by deflecting questions you're in no position to answer?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. schmenz says:
    @Corvinus
    "I doubt that."

    Exactly what people said in Watergate, which took years to uncover all of the layers.

    "No, they know they don’t need to build a watertight case in order to serve their establishment masters well and make their bones for life, just create enough smoke to allow impeachment, with the favourable winds of an overwhelmingly compliant and cynically dishonest media."

    Yes, the prosecutors must have their "ducks in a row", who are serving what they believe is justice, and not "establishment masters". For impeachment to happen, there must be a mountain of hard core evidence especially in this political climate.

    "This is at the point where politics and the law intersect and the law can be twisted to suit the political needs of the moment if sufficient political power can be brought to bear..."

    Red herring.

    "so there’s certainly no guarantee they won’t succeed even though the possibility of any actual malfeasance is pretty much zero."

    You nor I actually know for sure the extent of the alleged improprieties. So for you make that claim is arrogance and ignorance. In the end, nothing may come out of it, and everything that the investigators did was for naught. On the other hand, there may be significant charges brought up, with people going to prison. It will take months, probably years, for us to truly know.

    After umpteen years hearing about Watergate all I could see about that overwrought incident was much ado about very, very little.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "After umpteen years hearing about Watergate all I could see about that overwrought incident was much ado about very, very little."

    You be trolling.


    The final toll included:

    one presidential resignation

    one vice-presidential resignation – although Agnew’s crimes were unrelated to Watergate
    40 government officials indicted or jailed

    H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman (White House staff), resigned 30 April 1973, subsequently jailed

    John Dean (White House legal counsel), sacked 30 April 1973, subsequently jailed

    John Mitchell, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), jailed

    Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy (ex-White House staff), planned the Watergate break-in, both jailed

    Charles Colson, special counsel to the President, jailed

    James McCord (Security Director of CREEP), jailed
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. The First Empire Strikes Back

    NYT Piece on U.S. Noncompliance with the JCPOA (with Commentary from [Prof. of Treaty Law Dan Joyner]

    https://armscontrollaw.com/2017/07/19/nyt-piece-on-u-s-noncompliance-with-the-jcpoa-with-commentary-from-me/

    (Joyner comments: “It appears, though, that all signs point to this being the last 90 days of the U.S. participation in the JCPOA. See this analysis HERE.

    I think the FP piece [link below] explains well how this would be the worst possible outcome for the U.S. If Trump does withdraw from the deal, the U.S. will be a complete outlier and will be seen as having acted in bad faith.}

    As Relations Worsen, Iran Says U.S. Sanctions May Violate Nuclear Deal
    By DAVID E. SANGER and RICK GLADSTONEJULY 18, 2017

    Mohammad Javad Zarif, the foreign minister of Iran, charged on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s attempt to reimpose sanctions on his country was a violation of the accord signed two years ago . . .

    Trump’s incoherent policy on Iran is one of the primary reasons US authority around the world is tanking:

    U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership

    http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/

    All in all, it appears Iran is not the only sovereign nation that does not cotton to being bullied.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. schmenz says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    this ‘investigation’ is less about bringing Trump down — impossible as there is no evidence to support the claim of collusion — than about driving a wedge between US and Russia to sabotage diplomacy. By making Russia out to be the Evil Empire, the powers-that-be are trying to make it difficult for Trump to deal with Russia.
     
    It's more than that: Tom Cotton spoke at CSIS yesterday denouncing Russia as a great threat to US and to the "international order." Specifically, Cotton, formerly leader of the infamous letter to Iran that in an attempt to derail JCPOA, claimed that Russia is in violation of INF treaty; that we must remember that Putin is a KGB thug and always will be (no mention that George H W Bush was head of thuggish CIA before he became president and waged an unnecessary war on Iraq); that there is no difference between the old Soviet Union and Putin's Russia; that Putin was disregarding treaty demands with impunity; and that the US must ramp up pressure on Russia to comply with treaty or US would renounce the treaty.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRt_RzGN2wA

    Further, Cotton said that while the missile agreements w/ Russia did not permit USA to develop certain missile capacities, it did not place any constraints on USA allies. Therefore, Cagey Cotton said USA should urge its allies to beef up their missile technology, and that USA should invest $100billion in research in missiles for defense as well as offense.

    Cotton should be in an asylum, with padded walls. Where on earth do these idiots come from?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Where on earth do these idiots come from?
     
    Harvard on the Jordan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Avery
    Why don't you create a site and run it the way you think it should be run, instead of bitching about something you are getting free.


    {As far as I can tell, you’re merely a voluminous commenter in no position to answer my questions about how this really works.}


    I am a somewhat frequent commenter, but hardly 'voluminous'.
    Do you know what the difference is?

    {I’m curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers.}

    I am sure Mr. Unz, and Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers will contact you directly to explain and seek your approval.
    Any minute now.

    Don’t be so modest – you’re frequent AND voluminous. How many keystrokes have you expended here alone, playing comment constable by deflecting questions you’re in no position to answer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    I regret to state unequivocally, positively, and with complete dishonesty that 'modesty' has never been one of my vices.

    {....by deflecting questions you’re in no position to answer?}

    Since you undoubtedly are one of my millions of (secret) admirers*, you get the last word/post to answer the question you _are_ in a position to answer: {Why don't you create a site and run it the way you think it should be run, instead of bitching about something you are getting free. }.

    ______________
    *
    Since you apparently have quantitatively analyzed and processed my posts - {frequent AND voluminous} - obviously you have been reading them for quite some time: Yes?

    Now, now, don't be bashful: come out, come out, wherever youse, are.
    You are amongst friends, homes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Corvinus says:
    @schmenz
    After umpteen years hearing about Watergate all I could see about that overwrought incident was much ado about very, very little.

    “After umpteen years hearing about Watergate all I could see about that overwrought incident was much ado about very, very little.”

    You be trolling.

    The final toll included:

    one presidential resignation

    one vice-presidential resignation – although Agnew’s crimes were unrelated to Watergate
    40 government officials indicted or jailed

    H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman (White House staff), resigned 30 April 1973, subsequently jailed

    John Dean (White House legal counsel), sacked 30 April 1973, subsequently jailed

    John Mitchell, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), jailed

    Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy (ex-White House staff), planned the Watergate break-in, both jailed

    Charles Colson, special counsel to the President, jailed

    James McCord (Security Director of CREEP), jailed

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    I recognize all that. But, again, what exactly was it about the oversold Watergate incident that somehow turned it into the crime of the century?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Corvinus says:
    @Paul Yarbles

    I believe that there may or may not be something there
     
    You are being disingenuous when you pretend to be unbiased about President Trump's Russian collusion. One just has to read some of your earlier comments to see that you are pushing not for a "we don't have all the information so let's wait-and-see" approach, but for advocacy that President Trump and/or his people are obviously guilty of collusion.

    To what extent is Trump’s involvement remains to be seen, but there is something there.
     
    I, Corvinus, state that there is something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    You have no clue how much there is to this ongoing investigation. Follow Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor. There is so much rot by Trump’s team it will make your head spin.
     
    President Trump's team are a bunch of liars, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    “The same applies to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. There is no need to wait months or perhaps a couple of years to know this is Fake News.”

    That would again be ignorance. The same arguments were made by the Nixon Administration against the media when they were investigating his malfeasance. Furthermore, you have several high profile attorneys who are putting their careers on hold to be part of the Mueller investigation team.

     

    President Nixon was guilty and his administration used the same arguments, therefore President Trump and/or his people are are guilty (of something).

    Bigwig lawyers don't get involved when there's nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).


    “Ok. So tell us Corvy, do you think the Russia-gate narrative, currently being propagated by the media, is fake or real?”

    There assuredly is something taking place here, more than what the media is reporting, given that there is a special counsel, the FBI, and several state AG’s investigating different avenues, from RICO to spying to tampering to lying. People want the smoking gun, they want the evidence to immediately come out directly linking Trump. In such an investigation, however, you start at the bottom and work your way to the top. What is telling that is that Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, a prolific Supreme Court advocate who oversees the Justice Department’s criminal appellate docket, is on board. People of his caliber do not accept such a position to “lose”

    ...

    What exactly, I’m not sure.

     

    Again, bigwig lawyers don't get involved when there's nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    And yeah, you're not sure exactly, but you know there's something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).

    On and on it goes. Give me a flerking break!

    It's obvious that you don't like President Trump and want to see him taken down. And you're hoping that this Russian stuff is just the thing to do it. You're actively pushing this for heaven's sake. I would hope that not many here are fooled by your phony "I'm just taking a cool objective look at the facts" garbage.

    Please be honest and admit that every day you pray for the impeachment of President Trump. Can you admit this?

    “You are being disingenuous when you pretend to be unbiased about President Trump’s Russian collusion.”

    I am biased in that no one knows for certain, one way or the other, what the Feds have or do not have.

    “One just has to read some of your earlier comments to see that you are pushing not for a “we don’t have all the information so let’s wait-and-see” approach, but for advocacy that President Trump and/or his people are obviously guilty of collusion.”

    Please show me those earlier comments.

    “I, Corvinus, state that there is something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).”

    Actually, it’s “We, law enforcement, state that there has been illegal activity, so President Trump and/or members of his administration, are under investigation. It is up to a judge and/or jury to ascertain guilt or innocence”. I, Corvinus, want to know if there is any merit to the accusations.

    “Again, bigwig lawyers don’t get involved when there’s nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).”

    Of course bigwig lawyers get involved if something is there on BOTH sides. And President Trump and his group MAY be guilty of something.

    “And yeah, you’re not sure exactly, but you know there’s something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something).”

    No, YOU are assuming that I believe Trump is automatically guilty. Trigger warning on your part.

    “It’s obvious that you don’t like President Trump and want to see him taken down.”

    I’m not a fan, but I’m also not a fan if the prosecution comes up with little or next to nothing or if Trump did indeed pull some illegal shenanigans. Again, this stuff is complicated and will take months or years.

    “And you’re hoping that this Russian stuff is just the thing to do it.”

    I’m hoping for a resolution on the matter, however it plays out.

    “You’re actively pushing this for heaven’s sake. I would hope that not many here are fooled by your phony “I’m just taking a cool objective look at the facts” garbage.”

    It’s not an act. It’s actually what I believe.

    “Please be honest and admit that every day you pray for the impeachment of President Trump. Can you admit this?”

    I pray for justice. Can you admit this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Yarbles

    Please show me those earlier comments.
     
    Huh? Half of my reply to your post was made up of comments from you. Block quoted for clarity. Are you intentionally trying to mislead others or is it an accident? Are you a dishonest person?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA
    One slowly builds their case.

    Nonsense that the length of this BS means anything. Remember McMartin? That took a long time too.

    “Nonsense that the length of this BS means anything. Remember McMartin? That took a long time too.”

    Actually, with the potential of this case to be gigantic in scope, with dozens of people involved the length of time for the prosecution AND Trump’s team to get their ducks in a row decidedly matters here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Actually, with the potential of this case to be gigantic in scope

    The NSA has every phone conversation going out of the US and probably many in foreign countries and they have the itineraries of every Trump associate. This thing could have been done in two months. It is being dragged on for political reasons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Corvinus
    "Yes, you really don’t know, Corvinus. But you really believe, right? Cause you just said…

    I believe that there may or may not be something there, but apparently law enforcement has done their homework and therefore an investigation is warranted. And those investigating are going to do what they think is necessary to "win", just like Trump's lawyers will also pull out all the stops to "win".

    "So you really really want to convince others that Trump colluded with those evil Russkies. Why if you don’t know and only believe?"

    I want to convince others that we do not truly know the extent of their relationship and whether or not there was "collusion".

    "Let me guess, you didn’t vote for Trump."

    And I didn't vote for Hillary. BOTH lacked the requisite skills to be president.

    I’m sure you know but must emphasize: the job and duty of prosecutors is not to “win” in the sense of securing an indictment and then a conviction. Their job and duty is to pursue the truth, which may call for never seeking an indictment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    If only that were true in practice.
    , @Corvinus
    "I’m sure you know but must emphasize: the job and duty of prosecutors is not to “win” in the sense of securing an indictment and then a conviction. Their job and duty is to pursue the truth, which may call for never seeking an indictment."

    Indeed, "win" in pursuing the truth, wherever it takes the prosecutors, which includes securing an indictment/prosecution, OR letting the accused walk free because there lacks evidence to pursue the case before a judge or jury.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Corvinus
    "You are being disingenuous when you pretend to be unbiased about President Trump’s Russian collusion."

    I am biased in that no one knows for certain, one way or the other, what the Feds have or do not have.

    "One just has to read some of your earlier comments to see that you are pushing not for a “we don’t have all the information so let’s wait-and-see” approach, but for advocacy that President Trump and/or his people are obviously guilty of collusion."

    Please show me those earlier comments.

    "I, Corvinus, state that there is something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something)."

    Actually, it's "We, law enforcement, state that there has been illegal activity, so President Trump and/or members of his administration, are under investigation. It is up to a judge and/or jury to ascertain guilt or innocence". I, Corvinus, want to know if there is any merit to the accusations.

    "Again, bigwig lawyers don’t get involved when there’s nothing there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something)."

    Of course bigwig lawyers get involved if something is there on BOTH sides. And President Trump and his group MAY be guilty of something.

    "And yeah, you’re not sure exactly, but you know there’s something there, so President Trump and/or his people are guilty (of something)."

    No, YOU are assuming that I believe Trump is automatically guilty. Trigger warning on your part.

    "It’s obvious that you don’t like President Trump and want to see him taken down."

    I'm not a fan, but I'm also not a fan if the prosecution comes up with little or next to nothing or if Trump did indeed pull some illegal shenanigans. Again, this stuff is complicated and will take months or years.

    "And you’re hoping that this Russian stuff is just the thing to do it."

    I'm hoping for a resolution on the matter, however it plays out.

    "You’re actively pushing this for heaven’s sake. I would hope that not many here are fooled by your phony “I’m just taking a cool objective look at the facts” garbage."

    It's not an act. It's actually what I believe.

    "Please be honest and admit that every day you pray for the impeachment of President Trump. Can you admit this?"

    I pray for justice. Can you admit this?

    Please show me those earlier comments.

    Huh? Half of my reply to your post was made up of comments from you. Block quoted for clarity. Are you intentionally trying to mislead others or is it an accident? Are you a dishonest person?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Are you a dishonest person?"

    Are YOU? I offered clarity and context to individuals who believe there is absolutely nothing going on, or believe that if something did take place, in essence it is no big deal. Some people believe treason occurred, others believe that it was immoral but not illegal activities being conducted. I am saying an investigation has been deemed to be warranted.

    I have not stated specifically that Trump and/or his team have unequivocally guilty of collusion. Collusion may or may not have taken place. We simply do not know at this juncture. So when I said "please show me those earlier comments", I was referring to me stating exactly that Trump is totally guilty. I don't know. Do you now get it?

    Again, I am saying there is something there. What specifically, I don't know. It could be bigger than Watergate, it could be a witch hunt, with Trump and his team exonerated, or it could be something in between.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Avery says:
    @anonymous
    Don't be so modest - you're frequent AND voluminous. How many keystrokes have you expended here alone, playing comment constable by deflecting questions you're in no position to answer?

    I regret to state unequivocally, positively, and with complete dishonesty that ‘modesty’ has never been one of my vices.

    {….by deflecting questions you’re in no position to answer?}

    Since you undoubtedly are one of my millions of (secret) admirers*, you get the last word/post to answer the question you _are_ in a position to answer: {Why don’t you create a site and run it the way you think it should be run, instead of bitching about something you are getting free. }.

    ______________
    *
    Since you apparently have quantitatively analyzed and processed my posts – {frequent AND voluminous} – obviously you have been reading them for quite some time: Yes?

    Now, now, don’t be bashful: come out, come out, wherever youse, are.
    You are amongst friends, homes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @schmenz
    Cotton should be in an asylum, with padded walls. Where on earth do these idiots come from?

    Where on earth do these idiots come from?

    Harvard on the Jordan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @anonymous
    Yes, I am serious.

    Ron Unz didn't just erect a bathroom wall and leave a box of crayons. Of course he doesn't own every statement made by his roster of authors. But I would like to think that someone who runs a website with a good reputation expects those authors to meet standards of credibility, if for no other reason than to build and maintain thoughtful, critically thinking readership. If you or I were to submit an article, then Mr. Unz or someone he trusts would first read it, wouldn't he? And I expect that someone at Unz read this piece of Mr. Buchanan's, too. What happens between that point and publication is something I wonder about.

    As far as I can tell, you're merely a voluminous commenter in no position to answer my questions about how this really works.

    Sorry for butting in (not really) but it is a free speech site. Ron Unz does keep abreast of what transpires on this site to an amazing degree, especially when one considers that he also runs a successful business and that this is something like a hobby for him. He frequently chimes in when he disagrees or feels the need to inject something. Avery is also correct in pointing out that we pay nothing to use the site nor do we suffer from any advertising while here.

    Those contributors who do bother to respond to commenters increase their stock with readers here and the fact that Pat doesn’t bother says a lot about him as does his repeating of blatant media propaganda and falsehoods, see my comment #1.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    No apology necessary - your civility and good faith are refreshing.

    Look at what I said, as opposed to Avery's feisty reaction. .... OK, now: Isn't each of the following true, in your opinion?

    1. Pat Buchanan is gullible (or worse) about "Russian hacking."

    2. Publishing authors who are repeatedly wrong about important issues and aren't expected to substantiate their challenged assertions diminishes the website for a critically thinking readership.

    That anyone would get so jazzed by my bringing this up seems weird.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @RadicalCenter
    I'm sure you know but must emphasize: the job and duty of prosecutors is not to "win" in the sense of securing an indictment and then a conviction. Their job and duty is to pursue the truth, which may call for never seeking an indictment.

    If only that were true in practice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus
    "Nonsense that the length of this BS means anything. Remember McMartin? That took a long time too."

    Actually, with the potential of this case to be gigantic in scope, with dozens of people involved the length of time for the prosecution AND Trump's team to get their ducks in a row decidedly matters here.

    Actually, with the potential of this case to be gigantic in scope

    The NSA has every phone conversation going out of the US and probably many in foreign countries and they have the itineraries of every Trump associate. This thing could have been done in two months. It is being dragged on for political reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "This thing could have been done in two months."

    Do you have a law degree? Have you worked as an attorney? Have you worked in high profile cases?

    How do you know for certain that the timeframe you stated is entirely doable. Please elaborate with sources.

    "It is being dragged on for political reasons."

    Earth to MarkinLA, EVERYTHING is political. And it is being "dragged on" because there are so many moving parts, with so many actors, with so many legal angles, that investigators and prosecutors take their time. They must be meticulous. People's lives and careers are on the line here for both sides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Corvinus says:
    @Paul Yarbles

    Please show me those earlier comments.
     
    Huh? Half of my reply to your post was made up of comments from you. Block quoted for clarity. Are you intentionally trying to mislead others or is it an accident? Are you a dishonest person?

    “Are you a dishonest person?”

    Are YOU? I offered clarity and context to individuals who believe there is absolutely nothing going on, or believe that if something did take place, in essence it is no big deal. Some people believe treason occurred, others believe that it was immoral but not illegal activities being conducted. I am saying an investigation has been deemed to be warranted.

    I have not stated specifically that Trump and/or his team have unequivocally guilty of collusion. Collusion may or may not have taken place. We simply do not know at this juncture. So when I said “please show me those earlier comments”, I was referring to me stating exactly that Trump is totally guilty. I don’t know. Do you now get it?

    Again, I am saying there is something there. What specifically, I don’t know. It could be bigger than Watergate, it could be a witch hunt, with Trump and his team exonerated, or it could be something in between.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Yarbles

    So when I said “please show me those earlier comments”, I was referring to me stating exactly that Trump is totally guilty. I don’t know. Do you now get it?
     
    Yes, you never said something so explicit. But I thought you were being sneaky about me not referencing your comments at all, so this is just a misunderstanding then.

    Again, I am saying there is something there. What specifically, I don’t know. It could be bigger than Watergate, it could be a witch hunt, with Trump and his team exonerated, or it could be something in between.
     
    If it's a witch hunt, then doesn't that mean there's really nothing there? I mean what could be there in this case? Other than that I have to agree with you that all these are possible. Of course, I think it's all B.S. but I support President Trump, so I would say this!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA
    Actually, with the potential of this case to be gigantic in scope

    The NSA has every phone conversation going out of the US and probably many in foreign countries and they have the itineraries of every Trump associate. This thing could have been done in two months. It is being dragged on for political reasons.

    “This thing could have been done in two months.”

    Do you have a law degree? Have you worked as an attorney? Have you worked in high profile cases?

    How do you know for certain that the timeframe you stated is entirely doable. Please elaborate with sources.

    “It is being dragged on for political reasons.”

    Earth to MarkinLA, EVERYTHING is political. And it is being “dragged on” because there are so many moving parts, with so many actors, with so many legal angles, that investigators and prosecutors take their time. They must be meticulous. People’s lives and careers are on the line here for both sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    But, but Corvy, this is a trial in the court of public opinion, no law degree is required. There has been plenty of time to produce evidence and we all know that the NSA has it all. None has been forthcoming, none. Nada. Zip.

    It IS being dragged out to allow media lies to undermine American democracy, such as that is.

    You and those like-minded people who have allowed their hatred of Trump to cloud their judgement are either too stupid to know what they're doing or too traitorous to care. Trump was elected, I don't like him much either but he was a better choice than Hillary and he was elected, so get over it.

    Government by those behind the lying media who are intent on whipping up more senseless and un-winnable foreign wars will be far, far worse, I assure you.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    I'm sure you know but must emphasize: the job and duty of prosecutors is not to "win" in the sense of securing an indictment and then a conviction. Their job and duty is to pursue the truth, which may call for never seeking an indictment.

    “I’m sure you know but must emphasize: the job and duty of prosecutors is not to “win” in the sense of securing an indictment and then a conviction. Their job and duty is to pursue the truth, which may call for never seeking an indictment.”

    Indeed, “win” in pursuing the truth, wherever it takes the prosecutors, which includes securing an indictment/prosecution, OR letting the accused walk free because there lacks evidence to pursue the case before a judge or jury.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Corvinus
    "Are you a dishonest person?"

    Are YOU? I offered clarity and context to individuals who believe there is absolutely nothing going on, or believe that if something did take place, in essence it is no big deal. Some people believe treason occurred, others believe that it was immoral but not illegal activities being conducted. I am saying an investigation has been deemed to be warranted.

    I have not stated specifically that Trump and/or his team have unequivocally guilty of collusion. Collusion may or may not have taken place. We simply do not know at this juncture. So when I said "please show me those earlier comments", I was referring to me stating exactly that Trump is totally guilty. I don't know. Do you now get it?

    Again, I am saying there is something there. What specifically, I don't know. It could be bigger than Watergate, it could be a witch hunt, with Trump and his team exonerated, or it could be something in between.

    So when I said “please show me those earlier comments”, I was referring to me stating exactly that Trump is totally guilty. I don’t know. Do you now get it?

    Yes, you never said something so explicit. But I thought you were being sneaky about me not referencing your comments at all, so this is just a misunderstanding then.

    Again, I am saying there is something there. What specifically, I don’t know. It could be bigger than Watergate, it could be a witch hunt, with Trump and his team exonerated, or it could be something in between.

    If it’s a witch hunt, then doesn’t that mean there’s really nothing there? I mean what could be there in this case? Other than that I have to agree with you that all these are possible. Of course, I think it’s all B.S. but I support President Trump, so I would say this!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yes, you never said something so explicit. But I thought you were being sneaky about me not referencing your comments at all, so this is just a misunderstanding then."

    No problem.

    "If it’s a witch hunt, then doesn’t that mean there’s really nothing there?"

    We will only know if it was a witch hunt until after everything is said and done.

    "Of course, I think it’s all B.S. but I support President Trump, so I would say this!"

    Fair enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    Sorry for butting in (not really) but it is a free speech site. Ron Unz does keep abreast of what transpires on this site to an amazing degree, especially when one considers that he also runs a successful business and that this is something like a hobby for him. He frequently chimes in when he disagrees or feels the need to inject something. Avery is also correct in pointing out that we pay nothing to use the site nor do we suffer from any advertising while here.

    Those contributors who do bother to respond to commenters increase their stock with readers here and the fact that Pat doesn't bother says a lot about him as does his repeating of blatant media propaganda and falsehoods, see my comment #1.

    No apology necessary – your civility and good faith are refreshing.

    Look at what I said, as opposed to Avery’s feisty reaction. …. OK, now: Isn’t each of the following true, in your opinion?

    1. Pat Buchanan is gullible (or worse) about “Russian hacking.”

    2. Publishing authors who are repeatedly wrong about important issues and aren’t expected to substantiate their challenged assertions diminishes the website for a critically thinking readership.

    That anyone would get so jazzed by my bringing this up seems weird.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    No, I can't question what you said in response to ben tillman. It does seem to be an over reaction.

    I think a lot of people, especially in the US (where I no longer live) are frustrated and angry with how things are turning out so there's a lot of unnecessary lashing out. A lot of people put a lot of faith in Trump being the new messiah but as time passes it seems he's just a very naughty boy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Corvinus
    "This thing could have been done in two months."

    Do you have a law degree? Have you worked as an attorney? Have you worked in high profile cases?

    How do you know for certain that the timeframe you stated is entirely doable. Please elaborate with sources.

    "It is being dragged on for political reasons."

    Earth to MarkinLA, EVERYTHING is political. And it is being "dragged on" because there are so many moving parts, with so many actors, with so many legal angles, that investigators and prosecutors take their time. They must be meticulous. People's lives and careers are on the line here for both sides.

    But, but Corvy, this is a trial in the court of public opinion, no law degree is required. There has been plenty of time to produce evidence and we all know that the NSA has it all. None has been forthcoming, none. Nada. Zip.

    It IS being dragged out to allow media lies to undermine American democracy, such as that is.

    You and those like-minded people who have allowed their hatred of Trump to cloud their judgement are either too stupid to know what they’re doing or too traitorous to care. Trump was elected, I don’t like him much either but he was a better choice than Hillary and he was elected, so get over it.

    Government by those behind the lying media who are intent on whipping up more senseless and un-winnable foreign wars will be far, far worse, I assure you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "But, but Corvy, this is a trial in the court of public opinion, no law degree is required."

    No, there could be one or more court cases, so having a JD, at most, or having a rudimentary understanding of the law, at least, is required. Or, just as likely, there will be no court cases.

    "There has been plenty of time to produce evidence and we all know that the NSA has it all. None has been forthcoming, none. Nada. Zip."

    No, there has not been "enough time". No, the NSA does not "have it all". And in these cases, you work methodically. Apparently, you have little idea how these operations work.

    "It IS being dragged out to allow media lies to undermine American democracy, such as that is."

    Fake News Story.

    "You and those like-minded people who have allowed their hatred of Trump to cloud their judgement are either too stupid to know what they’re doing or too traitorous to care."

    You can replace "of Trump" with "Democrats/liberals", "cucks", "Republicans", the "Alt Right", etc. and all that remains is empty rhetoric.

    "Government by those behind the lying media who are intent on whipping up more senseless and un-winnable foreign wars will be far, far worse, I assure you."

    Yes, America has been needlessly involved in fighting wars it has no business fighting. We can agree on that particular issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @NoseytheDuke
    Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it will sink in.

    Mr. Buchanan is a great guy, but I suspect he still wastes much time reading print propaganda and is influenced. All the real evidence shows that DNC’s Seth Rich leaked it to Wikileaks, something lefty youtuber Jimmy Dore explains here:

    And we know Dorr is correct because the “Washington Post” immediately launched a smear campaign to “discredit” Dorr and other real newsmen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @anonymous
    No apology necessary - your civility and good faith are refreshing.

    Look at what I said, as opposed to Avery's feisty reaction. .... OK, now: Isn't each of the following true, in your opinion?

    1. Pat Buchanan is gullible (or worse) about "Russian hacking."

    2. Publishing authors who are repeatedly wrong about important issues and aren't expected to substantiate their challenged assertions diminishes the website for a critically thinking readership.

    That anyone would get so jazzed by my bringing this up seems weird.

    No, I can’t question what you said in response to ben tillman. It does seem to be an over reaction.

    I think a lot of people, especially in the US (where I no longer live) are frustrated and angry with how things are turning out so there’s a lot of unnecessary lashing out. A lot of people put a lot of faith in Trump being the new messiah but as time passes it seems he’s just a very naughty boy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thank you, again, for good faith and civility. Quality commentary is one of the best aspects of this website. I dread the decay that seems inevitable (Takimag, for instance) as an audience grows. I will try to keep your observations in mind when I contribute.

    You also have dealt very well above with Corvinus, who reminds me of a slicker Janet, a frequent Establishmentarian commenter on the Kunstler website. You come across as someone sitting on the porch, while it's hard for me not to see them in cubicles, photo IDs on slogan lanyards made from recyclable materials.

    And thank you, too, Mr. Unz, for this wonderful gift.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. utu says:
    @anonymous
    Don't hold your breath waiting for a straightforward response, especially from Mr. Buchanan. Does anyone recall him (cf., Dinh, Giraldi) ever amending or defending a challenged assertion here on this website?

    I'm curious about the extent to which Mr. Unz, Mr. Rockwell, and other publishers insist that authors document their assertions, or interact with readers. I suspect that venerables who have a following - like Mr. Buchanan - are not only condoned, but never questioned.

    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.

    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.

    I am glad you said it. I concur.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.

    I am glad you said it. I concur.
     
    If you wish to take the time, which may or may not be worth the effort, read ten of Buchanan's articles, time-sequential if possible.

    If you have spent a lot of years editing manuscripts, as I have, it is very much evident that the articles are not all written by the same person. It appears to me that Pat Buchanan functions primarily as an editor-in-chief. No crime in that -- it's done all the time (Giraldi being noteworthy, imo, for actually writing all of his himself). But, take all Buchanan's publishing with a grain of salt, maybe two grains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    No, I can't question what you said in response to ben tillman. It does seem to be an over reaction.

    I think a lot of people, especially in the US (where I no longer live) are frustrated and angry with how things are turning out so there's a lot of unnecessary lashing out. A lot of people put a lot of faith in Trump being the new messiah but as time passes it seems he's just a very naughty boy.

    Thank you, again, for good faith and civility. Quality commentary is one of the best aspects of this website. I dread the decay that seems inevitable (Takimag, for instance) as an audience grows. I will try to keep your observations in mind when I contribute.

    You also have dealt very well above with Corvinus, who reminds me of a slicker Janet, a frequent Establishmentarian commenter on the Kunstler website. You come across as someone sitting on the porch, while it’s hard for me not to see them in cubicles, photo IDs on slogan lanyards made from recyclable materials.

    And thank you, too, Mr. Unz, for this wonderful gift.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Corvinus says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    But, but Corvy, this is a trial in the court of public opinion, no law degree is required. There has been plenty of time to produce evidence and we all know that the NSA has it all. None has been forthcoming, none. Nada. Zip.

    It IS being dragged out to allow media lies to undermine American democracy, such as that is.

    You and those like-minded people who have allowed their hatred of Trump to cloud their judgement are either too stupid to know what they're doing or too traitorous to care. Trump was elected, I don't like him much either but he was a better choice than Hillary and he was elected, so get over it.

    Government by those behind the lying media who are intent on whipping up more senseless and un-winnable foreign wars will be far, far worse, I assure you.

    “But, but Corvy, this is a trial in the court of public opinion, no law degree is required.”

    No, there could be one or more court cases, so having a JD, at most, or having a rudimentary understanding of the law, at least, is required. Or, just as likely, there will be no court cases.

    “There has been plenty of time to produce evidence and we all know that the NSA has it all. None has been forthcoming, none. Nada. Zip.”

    No, there has not been “enough time”. No, the NSA does not “have it all”. And in these cases, you work methodically. Apparently, you have little idea how these operations work.

    “It IS being dragged out to allow media lies to undermine American democracy, such as that is.”

    Fake News Story.

    “You and those like-minded people who have allowed their hatred of Trump to cloud their judgement are either too stupid to know what they’re doing or too traitorous to care.”

    You can replace “of Trump” with “Democrats/liberals”, “cucks”, “Republicans”, the “Alt Right”, etc. and all that remains is empty rhetoric.

    “Government by those behind the lying media who are intent on whipping up more senseless and un-winnable foreign wars will be far, far worse, I assure you.”

    Yes, America has been needlessly involved in fighting wars it has no business fighting. We can agree on that particular issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Corvinus says:
    @Paul Yarbles

    So when I said “please show me those earlier comments”, I was referring to me stating exactly that Trump is totally guilty. I don’t know. Do you now get it?
     
    Yes, you never said something so explicit. But I thought you were being sneaky about me not referencing your comments at all, so this is just a misunderstanding then.

    Again, I am saying there is something there. What specifically, I don’t know. It could be bigger than Watergate, it could be a witch hunt, with Trump and his team exonerated, or it could be something in between.
     
    If it's a witch hunt, then doesn't that mean there's really nothing there? I mean what could be there in this case? Other than that I have to agree with you that all these are possible. Of course, I think it's all B.S. but I support President Trump, so I would say this!

    “Yes, you never said something so explicit. But I thought you were being sneaky about me not referencing your comments at all, so this is just a misunderstanding then.”

    No problem.

    “If it’s a witch hunt, then doesn’t that mean there’s really nothing there?”

    We will only know if it was a witch hunt until after everything is said and done.

    “Of course, I think it’s all B.S. but I support President Trump, so I would say this!”

    Fair enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. schmenz says:
    @Corvinus
    "After umpteen years hearing about Watergate all I could see about that overwrought incident was much ado about very, very little."

    You be trolling.


    The final toll included:

    one presidential resignation

    one vice-presidential resignation – although Agnew’s crimes were unrelated to Watergate
    40 government officials indicted or jailed

    H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman (White House staff), resigned 30 April 1973, subsequently jailed

    John Dean (White House legal counsel), sacked 30 April 1973, subsequently jailed

    John Mitchell, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), jailed

    Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy (ex-White House staff), planned the Watergate break-in, both jailed

    Charles Colson, special counsel to the President, jailed

    James McCord (Security Director of CREEP), jailed

    I recognize all that. But, again, what exactly was it about the oversold Watergate incident that somehow turned it into the crime of the century?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I recognize all that. But, again, what exactly was it about the oversold Watergate incident that somehow turned it into the crime of the century?"

    I don't know, a president who had hired henchmen to spy on the opposition, which led to his removal from the Oval Office?

    Sir, it was not "oversold". You are doubling down like an SJW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Corvinus says:
    @schmenz
    I recognize all that. But, again, what exactly was it about the oversold Watergate incident that somehow turned it into the crime of the century?

    “I recognize all that. But, again, what exactly was it about the oversold Watergate incident that somehow turned it into the crime of the century?”

    I don’t know, a president who had hired henchmen to spy on the opposition, which led to his removal from the Oval Office?

    Sir, it was not “oversold”. You are doubling down like an SJW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @utu
    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.


    I am glad you said it. I concur.

    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.

    I am glad you said it. I concur.

    If you wish to take the time, which may or may not be worth the effort, read ten of Buchanan’s articles, time-sequential if possible.

    If you have spent a lot of years editing manuscripts, as I have, it is very much evident that the articles are not all written by the same person. It appears to me that Pat Buchanan functions primarily as an editor-in-chief. No crime in that — it’s done all the time (Giraldi being noteworthy, imo, for actually writing all of his himself). But, take all Buchanan’s publishing with a grain of salt, maybe two grains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    It appears to me that Pat Buchanan functions primarily as an editor-in-chief.

    Perhaps. Most importantly he signs them with his name. I see his style in his articles. I recognize his style. He is older though. Perhaps he was left behind. In 2003 he wrote strong anti-war with Iraq articles and was exposing neocons. He hasn't written anything like that since. But also times has changed. There are new media and we are used to more aggressive and more challenging to the MSM position articles so we have much higher expectations. It is sad because I liked him and his personality though I did not agree with him on many issues.

    Somewhere on the web there is an AI machine that does Tom Friedman emulations with good results.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Mulegino1 says:

    Pat’s problem is that he still believes that the so called “Intelligence Community” is in the hands of red blooded American patriots. There certainly are many dedicated and patriotic members of said community. Unfortunately, their presence is effectively negated by the presence of the dual loyalists and corporate oligarchs who direct the process and make use of any and all intelligence gathered to serve, in Procrustean fashion, the criminal policies of the Atlanticist- Zionist empire and the business of wars for profit and Israel – absolutely counter to the interests of the American people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. utu says:
    @Anonymous

    I usually skip the Buchanan articles on this and other websites. He is predictable, uninformative, and usually about 10 or 15 degrees off even when I agree generally with his thesis.

    I am glad you said it. I concur.
     
    If you wish to take the time, which may or may not be worth the effort, read ten of Buchanan's articles, time-sequential if possible.

    If you have spent a lot of years editing manuscripts, as I have, it is very much evident that the articles are not all written by the same person. It appears to me that Pat Buchanan functions primarily as an editor-in-chief. No crime in that -- it's done all the time (Giraldi being noteworthy, imo, for actually writing all of his himself). But, take all Buchanan's publishing with a grain of salt, maybe two grains.

    It appears to me that Pat Buchanan functions primarily as an editor-in-chief.

    Perhaps. Most importantly he signs them with his name. I see his style in his articles. I recognize his style. He is older though. Perhaps he was left behind. In 2003 he wrote strong anti-war with Iraq articles and was exposing neocons. He hasn’t written anything like that since. But also times has changed. There are new media and we are used to more aggressive and more challenging to the MSM position articles so we have much higher expectations. It is sad because I liked him and his personality though I did not agree with him on many issues.

    Somewhere on the web there is an AI machine that does Tom Friedman emulations with good results.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @SolontoCroesus

    this ‘investigation’ is less about bringing Trump down — impossible as there is no evidence to support the claim of collusion — than about driving a wedge between US and Russia to sabotage diplomacy. By making Russia out to be the Evil Empire, the powers-that-be are trying to make it difficult for Trump to deal with Russia.
     
    It's more than that: Tom Cotton spoke at CSIS yesterday denouncing Russia as a great threat to US and to the "international order." Specifically, Cotton, formerly leader of the infamous letter to Iran that in an attempt to derail JCPOA, claimed that Russia is in violation of INF treaty; that we must remember that Putin is a KGB thug and always will be (no mention that George H W Bush was head of thuggish CIA before he became president and waged an unnecessary war on Iraq); that there is no difference between the old Soviet Union and Putin's Russia; that Putin was disregarding treaty demands with impunity; and that the US must ramp up pressure on Russia to comply with treaty or US would renounce the treaty.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRt_RzGN2wA

    Further, Cotton said that while the missile agreements w/ Russia did not permit USA to develop certain missile capacities, it did not place any constraints on USA allies. Therefore, Cagey Cotton said USA should urge its allies to beef up their missile technology, and that USA should invest $100billion in research in missiles for defense as well as offense.

    Prophecy—-When the Neocons eliminate Trump from office, and Pence becomes President, Pence will pick Sen. Tom Cotton to be his Vice-President.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Beer says:

    so there

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation