tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post5756459429945855881..comments2023-10-19T21:48:56.560-05:00Comments on meaning in history: Clinesmith Is Lying About Lyingmark wauckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-52024631034344532692020-09-01T13:55:45.248-05:002020-09-01T13:55:45.248-05:00It's an excellent article. I've read it. P...It's an excellent article. I've read it. Permit me to say that I've been making that point for quite a long time, now: "Clinesmith is one of a very small number of people who was involved with CH from its inception through and during it being taken over by Mueller."mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-89145694427282184872020-09-01T13:31:21.007-05:002020-09-01T13:31:21.007-05:00SWC's latest:
>> https://uncoverdc.com...SWC's latest:<br /><br />>> https://uncoverdc.com/2020/09/01/andrew-weissmann-wants-kevin-clinesmith-to-stop-snitchen/ <<<br /><br />Details the significance of the Clinesmith plea <i>vis-a-vis</i> circumstantial evidence of a criminal conspiracy.<br /><br />Key point: Clinesmith is one of a very small number of people who was involved with CH from its inception through and EZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-79246779352395022332020-08-25T16:16:57.906-05:002020-08-25T16:16:57.906-05:00@sethjlevy
“I forged an email for accuracy’s sake...@sethjlevy<br /><br />“I forged an email for accuracy’s sake”<br /><br />Hell of an argument lmao.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-20489677007889387532020-08-25T16:00:40.739-05:002020-08-25T16:00:40.739-05:00Maybe it was his girlfriend/wife, Sally Moyer, pre...Maybe it was his girlfriend/wife, Sally Moyer, pressuring him to follow throughAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14768541682338191921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-22406377431590394882020-08-25T14:44:07.608-05:002020-08-25T14:44:07.608-05:00"while true in and of itself--is utterly irre..."while true in and of itself--is utterly irrelevant to this situation", in that them being humiliated hardly explains the extreme lengths to which they went in this case.<br />Or, has such BS been, not extreme, but more common than we presume?<br />aNanyMousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452492302514671882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-38703667154345847282020-08-25T14:30:25.093-05:002020-08-25T14:30:25.093-05:00Perhaps McC is saving what I point out for his con...Perhaps McC is saving what I point out for his concluding Part III?<br /><br />EZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-69489909683537163712020-08-25T14:21:46.529-05:002020-08-25T14:21:46.529-05:00The other McC stuff about the FBI being humiliated...The other McC stuff about the FBI being humiliated and/or concerned for its image--while true in and of itself--is utterly irrelevant to this situation.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-90012182884401647052020-08-25T14:20:32.392-05:002020-08-25T14:20:32.392-05:00Of course, you're absolutely right, and McCart...Of course, you're absolutely right, and McCarthy laid that out yesterday--without drawing your conclusion:<br /><br />"Clinesmith’s Motives Mirror His Superiors’ Motives"<br /><br />"This was not a train Clinesmith could have started or stopped on his own."<br /><br />The solution was to just say no.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-19177780690051793912020-08-25T14:12:14.536-05:002020-08-25T14:12:14.536-05:00A mystery arises reading McCarthy's second art...A mystery arises reading McCarthy's second article:<br /><br />Faced with the dilemma of committing a false writing (if not evidence tampering,) McCarthy describes Clinesmith as having two choices: admit that CP was a "source" (if not an "operational contact") for CIA to the FISC, which would imply the three previous FISA applications improperly withheld this fact, or EZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-9413182479524630732020-08-25T13:53:10.354-05:002020-08-25T13:53:10.354-05:00Not worth bothering worth. What the CIA calls &quo...Not worth bothering worth. What the CIA calls "digraph encryption" is what the FBI calls a "symbol number". For example, an "operational asset would be designated "****-OA", where the asterisks represent some string of characters. That would be essentially the same thing with the CIA. The digraph is simply the tail end that designates the type of source. It'mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-81418858935589813502020-08-25T13:41:32.902-05:002020-08-25T13:41:32.902-05:00TxTxmark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-59699418339346137252020-08-25T13:33:40.303-05:002020-08-25T13:33:40.303-05:00McCarthy's Part II:
>> https://www.nat...McCarthy's Part II:<br /><br />>> https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/clinesmith-guilty-plea-using-a-digraph-to-conceal-a-massive-deception-of-the-court/ <<EZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-75469336369170208872020-08-25T11:46:08.686-05:002020-08-25T11:46:08.686-05:00Either way works. Since I enable all comments, tha...Either way works. Since I enable all comments, that undoubtedly brings things to my attention more quickly than email. I use a browser called Falkon for this blog and I only just now learned how to enable the Spellchecker for the browser. If it works for the blog drafts that should help cut down on typos. It does irk me to find typos, so I appreciate the heads ups (?).mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-27544155406930588202020-08-25T11:22:32.249-05:002020-08-25T11:22:32.249-05:00Mark, when we intrepid proofreaders find little er...Mark, when we intrepid proofreaders find little errors (very, very seldom considering the volume of work you put out) would you rather we sent them to you via email instead of posting on threads? I notice Don Surber requests that...Bebenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-67867402233188555722020-08-24T19:20:04.475-05:002020-08-24T19:20:04.475-05:00What a mess! Thanks.What a mess! Thanks.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-19757301797884297222020-08-24T18:50:58.731-05:002020-08-24T18:50:58.731-05:00And, I'll bet you meant a later clause to be ...And, I'll bet you meant a later clause to be <br />"a SSA who was NEW to the facts".aNanyMousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452492302514671882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-8987790274416808062020-08-24T18:34:04.687-05:002020-08-24T18:34:04.687-05:00"by explictly describing how her proper role ..."by explictly describing how her proper role was bypassed Anderson pointed to those above her,...."<br />Should that run-on sentence be split, e.g. into<br />"by explictITLY describing how her proper role was bypassed. Anderson pointed to those above her,...."?<br />Or should it be a comma after "bypasseD?<br /><br />In any case, I should think that, seeing as they were aNanyMousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452492302514671882noreply@blogger.com