The Irrational, Unshakable Faith of the Collusion Conspiracists
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
You make the accusation, you provide the proof of ample evidence and willingness.
Or did you just hear that from Fox and are mouthing off?
Seems accusations are enough to convict in today's atmosphere?
How about going back a few years on this subject.
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/t...s-columnists-peter-robinson.html#2da3f18c359a
You're the one who said he had approval from the White House?
How about going back a few years on this subject.
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/t...s-columnists-peter-robinson.html#2da3f18c359a
You're the one who said he had approval from the White House?
If you want to go making assertions from sketchy 3rd party notes and interpretations.. remember this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
Reagan approved Kennedy's 1985 contact with the Russians. Kennedy was a Senator of course, not an ordinary citizen seeking election.
The 1983 stuff is based on an uncovered memo from the soviet side. There is plenty if evidence it never happened and it is apparently discredited in part:
"As PolitiFact reported last month, Tunney told the The Times of London in 1992 that Chebrikov’s information was baloney, using an off-color term.
Tunney emphatically repeated that denial last month in an interview with Politifact.
"The idea that I would be handling contacts with Andropov is preposterous," he said. "The memo is completely false."
When PolitiFact asked archivists at the Reagan Library to search White House files on Kennedy, they were unable to find any episode involving the USSR in 1983. A search by the Senate Historical Office didn’t find anything either.
According to PolitiFact, Stephen Cohen, a Princeton University political scientist with years of archival experience in Soviet era documents, said that many KGB documents were false and the papers cannot be taken at face value.
In addition, a spokesman for Kennedy acknowledged in a 1992 exchange with a Boston Herald reporter that the senator had made other efforts to meet with Andropov, but nothing came of that outreach and "the rest of the memo is KGB fiction."
"
I can't disprove a conspiracy rumor. I am trying to find something solid to back the 1985 channel agreement.
Let me see if I have this correct. No one doubts the Chebrikov-Andropov memo exists, but so-called left leaning "in the know" sources doubt it's veracity? Tunney, the supposed "go-between" separating Kennedy from a treasonous act, pleads not guilty - really? And the memo turned up in the early 1990's, long after Reagan left office.... Humm, I wonder why Reagan didn't discuss it?
Oh, agreed. As a Senator, Kennedy would have met with Representatives from many different Countries with the full cooperation of the White House and US Government. But to say Reagan gave his approval to reach out in this capacity is ludicrous.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Nothing is a credible source then, how do I know the room I believe I am now in is real? I'm pretty sure you are imaginary...
Simply put, if Reagan delayed the release of the hostages by Iran until he was elected, he was a traitor most would agree. If Edward Kennedy acted traitorously, he was a one also.
Trump would also be a traitor if he committed traitorous acts. This is like hearing the right argue that a murder is OK because of of all the murders before. Nope.
Two are lost in time, one is a current matter.
Rushing to dismiss the accusation is wrong. The Republicans created something out of nothing with Benghazi and now they think the Dems are getting revenge. There is nothing excessive yet about Mueller's investigation. It is showing some interesting stuff, some bizarre.
Bullshit aside, what do you make of Don Jr's refusal to answer questions due to attorney client privilege? I assume that left you a little wide eyed? There is a lot of smoke here, Trump is making it in spectacular quantities. It is not the Dems fault they are increasingly suspicious.
My understanding is that this conspiracy level theory came to light in a book printer in 1994. By a guy who was really partisan, at least selling to a St Reagan audience.
How Our Guys Won the Cold War : VICTORY: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, By Peter Schweizer
In this he draws conclusions however the (liberal) LA Times has some neat comments on this. They also noted above this about how the contra stuff got skipped over.
"Schweizer quotes a Soviet secret police (KGB) letter suggesting that Senator Edward Kennedy was undercutting President Reagan's arms negotiations with his own secret gambits to the Russians through former Democratic Senator John Tunney, whom Schweizer also names. Schweizer doesn't mention that Kennedy and Tunney angrily deny this--or that Reagan's own disarmament negotiator, Max M. Kampelman, wrote a memoir lauding Kennedy for serving, at the Administration's request, as a confidential "back channel" to the Soviets, who wanted to talk to him because of his celebrity. Contrary to Schweizer's charge, President Reagan personally approved."
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-12/books/bk-3062_1_soviet-union
Wrong. There are credible sources. Politifact is not one of them.