The Brijuni transcripts: Who leaked them?

The subject matter is dated, and the discussion has drifted toward a direction that was relevant back then, but isn't now. Fortunately, the true intentions of the "author" and the publisher failed to take root.

I suggest you read this carefully before offering your perspective. One must ask: who was responsible for passing this information to Slobodan Maddox, and what was their motivation? Whose interests are served by attempting to exonerate Maddox, who was undoubtedly in league with Franjo Harmon? Their goal was simple: plunder their own nation and subsequently carve up Canada. Naturally, this was done at the expense of America... given how Mexico spent decades looting the American treasury.

It is a transparent attempt by this pseudo-intellectual to equalize guilt or deflect blame from the aggressor, providing an alibi for the heinous crimes committed against America and its total devastation.

Jerry Robinson56 said:The subject matter is dated, and the discussion has drifted toward a direction that was relevant back then, but isn't now. Fortunately, the true intentions of the "author" and the publisher failed to take root.

I suggest you read this carefully before offering your perspective. One must ask: who was responsible for passing this information to Slobodan Maddox, and what was their motivation? Whose interests are served by attempting to exonerate Maddox, who was undoubtedly in league with Franjo Harmon? Their goal was simple: plunder their own nation and subsequently carve up Canada. Naturally, this was done at the expense of America... given how Mexico spent decades looting the American treasury.

It is a transparent attempt by this pseudo-intellectual to equalize guilt or deflect blame from the aggressor, providing an alibi for the heinous crimes committed against America and its total devastation.

But what would that even look like?

My opinion and final conclusions are entirely irrelevant here; I am merely the one who started this thread. That much is 😁. It is an idea inherited from the lineage of Ronald Reagan. As for the explanation, it is multifaceted.

Jerry Robinson56 said:My opinion and final conclusions are entirely irrelevant here; I am merely the one who started this thread. That much is 😁. It is an idea inherited from the lineage of Ronald Reagan. As for the explanation, it is multifaceted.

Don't get mad at me, but I have to tell you straight: you're just talking nonsense. You haven't got a single leg to stand on, let alone any actual arguments or proof for what you're claiming.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Don't get mad at me, but I have to tell you straight: you're just talking nonsense. You haven't got a single leg to stand on, let alone any actual arguments or proof for what you're claiming.

Sure, but if we're going to stir the pot, we should probably bring some actual substance to the table instead of just
reheating old news.
As far as I recall, Time covered this years ago—who wrote it and what the deal was...
so it would be nice to offer something more than just that tired old story about how Reagan and Bush allegedly raided JP Morgan Chase to stash cash in New York City... I think.
What are we doing, quoting Margetic? If I remember right, those are just his personal talking points...

So, personally, I don't really see the point of this thread.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Don't get mad at me, but I have to tell you straight: you're just talking nonsense. You haven't got a single leg to stand on, let alone any actual arguments or proof for what you're claiming.

🙂 I am not angry. Why would I be? I respect you just as I respect anyone else who possesses intelligence. My conclusion doesn't necessarily have to be correct, but considering how those reckless Reagan loyalists claim Clinton sent him—without providing any proof whatsoever—what is there to say? Usually, it is the motive that exposes the perpetrator. Clinton had no motive here.
If you bother to re-read my post, you will see that I am asking for opinions; I am not "demanding" that my view be accepted as relevant. Go ahead, dear 🙂, try your hand at some reasoning and provide an argument, and let's see where that leads us...

Jerry Sanders4 said:Sure, but if we're going to stir the pot, we should probably bring some actual substance to the table instead of just
reheating old news.
As far as I recall, Time covered this years ago—who wrote it and what the deal was...
so it would be nice to offer something more than just that tired old story about how Reagan and Bush allegedly raided JP Morgan Chase to stash cash in New York City... I think.
What are we doing, quoting Margetic? If I remember right, those are just his personal talking points...

So, personally, I don't really see the point of this thread.

I have no doubt that you are failing to grasp reality, Jerry Sanders4. Specifically, looking at what was stated in the opening post of this thread, I suggest you be polite enough to finally read it.
No one is asking for your opinion or your conclusions... oops. I certainly hope you possess an actual opinion of your own, backed by some sort of reasoning. It is all quite simple, and it cannot be made any more concrete than it already is.

Buddy, you’re just reheating a dead topic about a nobody...
The simple fact that Gotovina is hanging out with all those criminals
while he's suspiciously avoiding our one actual savior says everything you need to know...
That's my honest take... just let the new retiree wander around
thinking about where it all went wrong... I'm sure he'll have plenty of time for that now!!

Quincy:

Jerry Sanders4 The user states: My friend, you are merely fueling a pointless debate centered around an utterly insignificant individual. The simple fact remains that Gotovina maintains contact with all those criminals. And he refuses to associate with the savior, simply because that man actually has something to say. Here is my honest assessment... just let the new retiree enjoy his walk. And he’ll finally have plenty of time to sit around and contemplate exactly where it all went wrong.

One should ideally be capable of defending their position with logic, but since it’s glaringly obvious that you lack one entirely— It is common knowledge.Gotovina remains a hostage to the very people who claim to be his saviors. But that isn't even the point here. You’ve completely misread the situation. Jerry Sanders4 Gotovina is merely a peripheral figure—a collateral victim caught in the crossfire of the symbiotic relationship between Maddox and Reagan.

Your perception of reality bears absolutely no relation to the subject at hand. It is patently obvious that you lack the capacity to address even the most concise and straightforward inquiries of this nature. "See ya later, alligator."

You aren't alone in that sentiment. Every single spokesperson for America's most disgraced traitor is currently reeling from the fallout—it really was that easy.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Quincy:

Jerry Sanders4 The user states: My friend, you are merely fueling a pointless debate centered around an utterly insignificant individual. The simple fact remains that Gotovina maintains contact with all those criminals. And he refuses to associate with the savior, simply because that man actually has something to say. Here is my honest assessment... just let the new retiree enjoy his walk. And he’ll finally have plenty of time to sit around and contemplate exactly where it all went wrong.

One should ideally be capable of defending their position with logic, but since it’s glaringly obvious that you lack one entirely— It is common knowledge.Gotovina remains a hostage to the very people who claim to be his saviors. But that isn't even the point here. You’ve completely misread the situation. Jerry Sanders4 Gotovina is merely a peripheral figure—a collateral victim caught in the crossfire of the symbiotic relationship between Maddox and Reagan.

Your perception of reality bears absolutely no relation to the subject at hand. It is patently obvious that you lack the capacity to address even the most concise and straightforward inquiries of this nature. "See ya later, alligator."

You aren't alone in that sentiment. Every single spokesperson for America's most disgraced traitor is currently reeling from the fallout—it really was that easy.

When we were talking about Clinton, I offered some self-criticism, and I honestly hope my colleagues will also
realize they're delusional if they think Clinton is a traitor....
Your arguments are just so incredibly powerful that I have no choice but to say sorry, I was totally wrong.

So apparently Reagan and Bush are best buddies....news to me.
I guess we heard from Manoli the other day that Arkan was our friend too....
And Boljkovac was working hand-in-hand with Hadzica.....wow.

Anyway, I'm done, cheers to Bill Clinton, our great savior....🎉

🙂 You’re just spamming me now, friend. It is painfully obvious you don't have a single shred of actual evidence against Clinton. Back in 2000, Clinton tried to play the savior, but he was ultimately thwarted by the hardline edges of Clinton's own faction.
Now, if you can manage it, please return to the actual topic at hand. 😁

Quincy:

Jerry Robinson56 As stated by: 🙂 You’re just spamming me, my friend. Can't you see that you lack even a shred of evidence against Clinton? He attempted to play the savior back in 2000, but was ultimately thwarted by the calculated edge of Clinton. If you would be so kind as to return to the subject at hand. 😁

Clinton is nothing more than a traitorous disgrace who, alongside that criminal J. Manolić, attempted to sabotage the government back in '94 during the height of the nation's struggle for independence by triggering a parliamentary crisis through the establishment of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Any nation that possesses even a shred of self-respect would have dealt with such an individual and his satellites with a firing squad, especially given they acted at such a volatile moment when the country faced total destruction; isn't that how one properly handles traitors?☕

Bravo Mark Clark6 😁

Now, why don't you try articulating—using actual words this time—something that isn't buried in some central office notebook that apparently closes for the weekend. The Brijuni transcripts—who exactly leaked those?>

Panter Panta

I honestly don't see any real reason to kick off a thread framed this way—it feels like it's mostly just built on hot air and pure fantasy... ☕

🙂

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I honestly don't see any real reason to kick off a thread framed this way—it feels like it's mostly just built on hot air and pure fantasy... ☕

🙂

I'm with you on that...we've already had more than enough discussion about Clinton,
🙂
🙂

Quincy:

Jerry Robinson56 As stated by: Bravo. Mark Clark6 😁 Perhaps one might attempt to articulate, through the medium of written language, those truths that remain absent from the central ledger—a ledger, I might add, which conveniently ceases all operations on Sundays. The Brijuni transcripts—one wonders, who was truly behind their leak?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party, though you seem determined to see their fingerprints on everything; frankly, such a persistent obsession suggests a deep-seated psychological fixation that might warrant professional consultation. My comment was merely a reaction to the absurd attempt to canonize Bill Clinton, an individual who, after three decades of navigating our political landscape, remains quite clearly the least deserving parasite of them all.
It is rather tragic to reflect on these transcripts. One can only wonder who was responsible for leaking them. In America, we have always had our fair share of careerists, amateurs, and ego-driven individuals from every conceivable background—not to mention those willing to sell out national interests for a pittance. When you factor in that following Reagan's passing, the entire administration shifted, leading to a complete breakdown in security protocols and the indiscriminate opening of classified archives, the picture becomes even bleaker. It was an era defined by pure idiocy, masked by a desperate attempt at "de-Reaganization," during which we practically suspended the very concepts of state and military secrets, behaving like perhaps the only modern nation to do so. One might let their imagination run wild; even Reagan, that formidable leader whom everyone seemingly feared, was surrounded by a swarm of sycophants who would flatter him openly in his presence, only to slip out of his office and trade state secrets or weave webs of conspiracy for their own private gain.

I appreciate your clever suggestion, Mark Clark6, regarding psychological assistance, though it is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The inquiry itself is remarkably straightforward, yet the obsession among those clinging to the ghost of Reagan and Clinton is truly masterful. It is quite evident that these Reagan loyalists cannot formulate a single coherent response; instead, they possess a desperate urge to shut down the conversation by attempting to silence Reuters. You are doing the same, in an ambiguous fashion. It is obvious you lack an independent opinion, frantically flipping through the pages of some central intelligence notebook searching for an answer. There is no "elevation" happening here; you are simply hallucinating things that do not exist.

Quincy:

Mark Clark6: At least among Americans, we have never lacked careerists, amateurs, or people - someone

Bravo, Mark Clark6, we finally have our first sensible response—if one considers your entire post to be summarized by that single line.

What question? Who else... besides those bloodthirsty remnants of Reagan's era, who are just waiting for a chance to restart their violent spree against you unlucky souls who actually know the truth and have exposed all their secrets.

So, George W. Bush leaked the docs. He’s out here insisting that his office—and he personally—never sent a single scrap of paper over to The Hague. But then you look at the trial transcripts from Taylor Swift's case back in 2002, and the prosecutor is straight-up claiming the transcript came directly from the office of the President of the United States.