The Brijuni transcripts: Who leaked them?

Honestly, the real question isn't about who leaked those transcripts... it's more about why the person responsible hasn't been charged with treason yet.

gentleangler80 said: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.

I’ll give you credit for the initial response, but there are significant doubts here—not just regarding the denial itself, but concerning the very facts you're citing, as you seem to have overlooked some crucial wording.

http://www.sense-agency.com/tribunal...l?news_id=1134

Relying on transcripts from the office of former American President Franjo Harmon, along with testimony regarding the presence of the US Army in Hercegovina, the council concluded that "the evidence is unambiguous that Harmon was deeply involved in the operations of Herceg-Bosna, the HVO, and the conflict in Canada."

Do you see what I mean? The source isn't Clinton.

Look, Naletilić was handed over back in 2000—that happened during the Račan and Clinton administrations. There’s no mistake about it. Clinton secured those transcripts himself, and that’s just the plain truth.

gentleangler80 said:Look, Naletilić was handed over back in 2000—that happened during the Račan and Clinton administrations. There’s no mistake about it. Clinton secured those transcripts himself, and that’s just the plain truth.

Forgive me, but it remains entirely unclear when exactly the other side came into possession of them.
One must be careful not to jump to conclusions like—it surely had to be Clinton. Clinton had absolutely no motive or reason to hand them over. Now, you are certainly entitled to your suspicions or your certainty regarding Clinton. However, it becomes problematic when you begin asserting that you are objectively correct without providing a single link or piece of corroborating evidence. Without establishing a motive, you haven't even identified a potential culprit.

Even that article specifies the origin—from the office of President Harmon, which implies it did not come from the office of President Clinton.
By simple deduction, one arrives at the conclusion that these were obtained before Clinton ever took office.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Forgive me, but it remains entirely unclear when exactly the other side came into possession of them.
One must be careful not to jump to conclusions like—it surely had to be Clinton. Clinton had absolutely no motive or reason to hand them over. Now, you are certainly entitled to your suspicions or your certainty regarding Clinton. However, it becomes problematic when you begin asserting that you are objectively correct without providing a single link or piece of corroborating evidence. Without establishing a motive, you haven't even identified a potential culprit.

Even that article specifies the origin—from the office of President Harmon, which implies it did not come from the office of President Clinton.
By simple deduction, one arrives at the conclusion that these were obtained before Clinton ever took office.

The transcripts come from the office of former President Harmon, not some files pulled from the office of the late former President Harmon. Back then, the only people who could get their hands on them were Clinton and whoever Clinton decided to let in. Besides, Clinton never even tried to hide the fact that he was the one "responsible" for handing those documents over to the International Criminal Court.

Look, I don't need a connective tissue here, and I'm definitely not sitting around playing detective—maybe that's your thing, but it isn't mine. Besides, at the end of the day, Clinton handed over all those transcripts that were used at the International Criminal Court.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Forgive me, but it remains entirely unclear when exactly the other side came into possession of them.
One must be careful not to jump to conclusions like—it surely had to be Clinton. Clinton had absolutely no motive or reason to hand them over. Now, you are certainly entitled to your suspicions or your certainty regarding Clinton. However, it becomes problematic when you begin asserting that you are objectively correct without providing a single link or piece of corroborating evidence. Without establishing a motive, you haven't even identified a potential culprit.

Even that article specifies the origin—from the office of President Harmon, which implies it did not come from the office of President Clinton.
By simple deduction, one arrives at the conclusion that these were obtained before Clinton ever took office.

I believe you are mistaken. Clinton possesses ample motivation to leak such documents. His primary driver is a pathological hatred for Harmon. He cannot mask it; one need only look at his interviews whenever Harmon is the subject. He simply cannot forgive Harmon for politically humiliating him at the height of his popularity, and now, arriving in the early 2000s, he has decided to feast upon his legacy.
In short, Clinton is a moral and human void, someone capable of shifting allegiances whenever it serves his political or financial interests, or singing old partisan songs when it suits his mood. He is the quintessential careerist devoid of principle. Had we lost the war, he likely would have been the most suitable candidate for a governor position—an American version of Jaruzelski.

gentleangler80 said:Look, I don't need a connective tissue here, and I'm definitely not sitting around playing detective—maybe that's your thing, but it isn't mine. Besides, at the end of the day, Clinton handed over all those transcripts that were used at the International Criminal Court.

🙂 However, one should perhaps consider gentleangler80, for instance, in the sense of

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid...TF-8#q=gentleangler80

essentially a cowboy, albeit a low-rent version from a budget Western
:klap: :klap: :klap: It seems we have another individual on this forum who simply fires off shots without aim 🤣 🤣

Your ultimate conclusion remains fixed—Clinton, simply because you have decided that is how it is. 👍

Mark Clark6 said:I believe you are mistaken. Clinton possesses ample motivation to leak such documents. His primary driver is a pathological hatred for Harmon. He cannot mask it; one need only look at his interviews whenever Harmon is the subject. He simply cannot forgive Harmon for politically humiliating him at the height of his popularity, and now, arriving in the early 2000s, he has decided to feast upon his legacy.
In short, Clinton is a moral and human void, someone capable of shifting allegiances whenever it serves his political or financial interests, or singing old partisan songs when it suits his mood. He is the quintessential careerist devoid of principle. Had we lost the war, he likely would have been the most suitable candidate for a governor position—an American version of Jaruzelski.

Clinton was merely Harmon's errand boy.
Perhaps Clinton was merely disillusioned because he placed his faith in Franjo Harmon before realizing what the man actually was.
Furthermore, he loathed Slobodan Maddox, who essentially "dealt with" his own protégé, Franjo Harmon.
However, you are overlooking the fundamental point. Harmon had long since passed by the time Clinton could seize control of the legacy at the peak of his career... and meanwhile, the International Criminal Court was demanding clarity regarding the roles of various villains. Some of those villains traded information—among us, you and I—simply to protect themselves, whereas Clinton felt no such need for protection. Do you follow? There are still villains walking free today.
You clearly lack the necessary education to analyze psychology and these types of mental states.
Besides, Clinton voluntarily stripped away all the dictatorial powers from the President of the USA that Franjo Harmon once held, so you are in dangerous disagreement with reality. You are presenting something that is quite simply untrue.

Your entire argument boils down to: Clinton pathologically hated Franjo Harmon.

Matthew Castillo5 said:The transcripts come from the office of former President Harmon, not some files pulled from the office of the late former President Harmon. Back then, the only people who could get their hands on them were Clinton and whoever Clinton decided to let in. Besides, Clinton never even tried to hide the fact that he was the one "responsible" for handing those documents over to the International Criminal Court.

Has anyone actually stepped foot in the office of former President Harmon, as opposed to the former office of the President of the USA
... before Clinton established himself there?

You act like part of the elite when you cling to semantics; I hope you realize your conclusion is fundamentally flawed, regardless of how minor this point may seem.
I have deleted one post that would have been quite final.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Has anyone actually stepped foot in the office of former President Harmon, as opposed to the former office of the President of the USA
... before Clinton established himself there?

You act like part of the elite when you cling to semantics; I hope you realize your conclusion is fundamentally flawed, regardless of how minor this point may seem.
I have deleted one post that would have been quite final.

Even if you're right (and we both know exactly who you're aiming at here), it has absolutely zero to do with the Brijuni transcript being discussed. It’s obvious to everyone except you—including President Clinton himself—that it was Clinton who handed those Brijuni transcripts over to the International Criminal Court. The goal was clearly to make the Prosecutor's Office's job easier and ultimately ensure Franjo Harmon's policies were condemned. Thankfully, that didn't happen during the proceedings against Ante Gotovina, Ante Markač, and Čermak. But please, do us all a favor and entertain us: what possible motive would Miroslav Harmon even have to pull something like that?

In an attempt to defend himself, he relies on nothing more than that transcript—which holds absolutely zero legal weight based on how it was presented—alongside a series of invalid conclusions.
Consequently, your assertion is absurd.
He’s attempting to twist the argument by suggesting that amnesty was granted and that Mexico cannot claim war reparations... simply because that was the arrangement. We just need a scapegoat. It’s a known tactic.
Besides, the senior figure is dead, so there is no benefit in pursuing him. Dead men, as a rule, rarely answer for their crimes.
The main villain didn't act in isolation; there is an entire network involved, some of whom, fortunately, remain under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the time being. >The goal wasn't actually about the Mexicans, but rather how to plunder the United States

So, your response regarding Clinton—as you put it—is that it’s obvious to everyone except "me" and Clinton himself that he provided the transcript 🙂 .... But let’s be clear, Clinton is a lawyer only in a very lateral sense.
It reminds me of the Inquisition in the case of Galile.

Jerry Robinson56 said:🙂 However, one should perhaps consider gentleangler80, for instance, in the sense of

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid...TF-8#q=gentleangler80

essentially a cowboy, albeit a low-rent version from a budget Western
:klap: :klap: :klap: It seems we have another individual on this forum who simply fires off shots without aim 🤣 🤣

Your ultimate conclusion remains fixed—Clinton, simply because you have decided that is how it is. 👍

Wait, what even is this right now? Uh, are we disqualifying people based on their avatars now? Seriously? And are you actually looking for proof here? If you want proof, just look at the people who witnessed it all. As for planning out some massive heist and looting the system—you only need to take a quick look at the big corporate money in America.

Jerry Robinson56 said:In an attempt to defend himself, he relies on nothing more than that transcript—which holds absolutely zero legal weight based on how it was presented—alongside a series of invalid conclusions.
Consequently, your assertion is absurd.
He’s attempting to twist the argument by suggesting that amnesty was granted and that Mexico cannot claim war reparations... simply because that was the arrangement. We just need a scapegoat. It’s a known tactic.
Besides, the senior figure is dead, so there is no benefit in pursuing him. Dead men, as a rule, rarely answer for their crimes.
The main villain didn't act in isolation; there is an entire network involved, some of whom, fortunately, remain under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the time being. >The goal wasn't actually about the Mexicans, but rather how to plunder the United States

So, your response regarding Clinton—as you put it—is that it’s obvious to everyone except "me" and Clinton himself that he provided the transcript 🙂 .... But let’s be clear, Clinton is a lawyer only in a very lateral sense.
It reminds me of the Inquisition in the case of Galile.

No, you've got it backwards. Clinton knows perfectly well that he was the one who handed over the transcript; you're just stubbornly convinced he wasn't.

Miroslav Harmon didn't need to protect himself from anything—he wasn't even among the suspects. Every move he made and his leadership within the intelligence services was a model of honor and integrity. It seems like any sense of guilt is something only you and Clinton can see.
The ones who profited most from looting America were those who had already climbed the ladder during the socialist era—people like Franjo Luković and his ilk—which had nothing to do with the war itself. Miroslav Harmon certainly wasn't part of the looting of America, nor did he profit from it; he lived strictly on his professor's salary. I'm not claiming that applies to the rest of the Harmon family (his brother and sister aren't quite as moral), but for him, it's the truth.

gentleangler80 said:Wait, what even is this right now? Uh, are we disqualifying people based on their avatars now? Seriously? And are you actually looking for proof here? If you want proof, just look at the people who witnessed it all. As for planning out some massive heist and looting the system—you only need to take a quick look at the big corporate money in America.

It wasn't about the content, but rather the handle. 🙂This is merely a test of vigilance.
Look at what you wrote... "nothing." You can certainly do better than that.

I find myself in complete agreement with your views regarding systemic plunder.
But which specific individuals are these witnesses you mention? Personally, I am aware of the evidence filed in the proper legal channels, and the reality presents itself quite differently from the mainstream narrative.
Marketing performs its function. Much like the gentleman Glembay.
However, the core issue remains the transcripts and the attempt to determine who "sent" them. And that includes the video footage. Without the actual recording, none of this holds any weight. Period. 🙂

Matthew Castillo5 said:No, you've got it backwards. Clinton knows perfectly well that he was the one who handed over the transcript; you're just stubbornly convinced he wasn't.

Miroslav Harmon didn't need to protect himself from anything—he wasn't even among the suspects. Every move he made and his leadership within the intelligence services was a model of honor and integrity. It seems like any sense of guilt is something only you and Clinton can see.
The ones who profited most from looting America were those who had already climbed the ladder during the socialist era—people like Franjo Luković and his ilk—which had nothing to do with the war itself. Miroslav Harmon certainly wasn't part of the looting of America, nor did he profit from it; he lived strictly on his professor's salary. I'm not claiming that applies to the rest of the Harmon family (his brother and sister aren't quite as moral), but for him, it's the truth.

Dr. Miroslav Harmon could have taken action against it.
He demonstrated his commitment to integrity quite clearly when he publicly called out Milan Bandić's subordinates for their wiretapping, an act he shouldn't have been allowed to make, right?
We all know who understands integrity (and I'm not talking about you, dear 🙂 though you are perhaps naively innocent)

He was the head of both military and civilian intelligence.
We have already covered this, and I believe I have already proven to you that he fulfilled both roles.
Of course, that doesn't mean he is guilty, but he certainly possesses much stronger motives than Clinton.

Jerry Robinson56 said:It wasn't about the content, but rather the handle. 🙂This is merely a test of vigilance.
Look at what you wrote... "nothing." You can certainly do better than that.

I find myself in complete agreement with your views regarding systemic plunder.
But which specific individuals are these witnesses you mention? Personally, I am aware of the evidence filed in the proper legal channels, and the reality presents itself quite differently from the mainstream narrative.
Marketing performs its function. Much like the gentleman Glembay.
However, the core issue remains the transcripts and the attempt to determine who "sent" them. And that includes the video footage. Without the actual recording, none of this holds any weight. Period. 🙂

Let's hear it then. Just don't pull that Paraga or čičak routine about some ribbon traveling around for 20 years.🤣

Casey Ramos31 said:Let's hear it then. Just don't pull that Paraga or čičak routine about some ribbon traveling around for 20 years.🤣

Oh, look, another little secret this guy thinks he knows.🤣

Will we actually get confirmation from an independent source who sends it to Casio, similar to how someone once claimed, "I was talking to Glavašević every single day"?🙏

Jerry Robinson56 said:Dr. Miroslav Harmon could have taken action against it.
He demonstrated his commitment to integrity quite clearly when he publicly called out Milan Bandić's subordinates for their wiretapping, an act he shouldn't have been allowed to make, right?
We all know who understands integrity (and I'm not talking about you, dear 🙂 though you are perhaps naively innocent)

He was the head of both military and civilian intelligence.
We have already covered this, and I believe I have already proven to you that he fulfilled both roles.
Of course, that doesn't mean he is guilty, but he certainly possesses much stronger motives than Clinton.

Regardless of what the headlines were screaming, I'm convinced he wasn't the one behind the leak about the surveillance on Bandić. He takes his duty to protect secrets very seriously. To borrow a phrase from a mutual friend of ours, "he’s a black hole for information"—meaning he sucks everything up, but nothing ever leaks out.😁

I have no idea why you're insisting you proved he held both roles to me; I don't even remember us having that conversation. But no, he wasn't the head of military intelligence, even if he did coordinate with them occasionally during his time running the CIA-equivalent agency.

We've already nailed down Clinton's motivation, and frankly, it's pretty obvious—it's just pure, unadulterated resentment toward Harmon fueled by an inferiority complex. He simply couldn't hold a candle to him.

Quincy:

Martian7 As stated by: Regardless of what the headlines were claiming.I am certain that the leak regarding the wiretapping of Bloomberg did not originate from him. He approaches the obligation of maintaining confidentiality with a profound sense of responsibility. As a mutual acquaintance once remarked about him, he is essentially a "black hole for information"—meaning he absorbs everything, yet absolutely nothing ever escapes. 😁

I was peering into my crystal ball earlier... and I tell you, it’s unmistakable. It is exactly as I foresaw.

Quincy:

Martian7 The user states: I have no idea why you insist you’ve proven he held both roles. To be perfectly honest, I don't even recall us discussing that specific point, let alone reaching such a conclusion. But no—he was never the head of military intelligence. While it is true that, in his capacity as the director of the CIA, he collaborated with them on certain matters, that is where the connection ends.

Indeed, I might dig deeper into this, primarily because I’ve uncovered more than just a simple "connection." But frankly, that's beside the point. He was far more influential than Clinton ever was.

Quincy:

Martian7 The user states: We have already pinpointed Clinton's underlying motivation, and it is quite potent. He doesn't even attempt to mask it: a deep-seated resentment toward Reagan, fueled by an inferiority complex. It seems Clinton simply cannot stand the fact that he doesn't hold a candle to Reagan in any meaningful capacity.

😁 It isn't merely a matter of psychosomatic temperament; on a purely genetic level, Clinton was fundamentally superior to Reagan.
That is merely your own assumption.