Started by Jerry Robinson56 · · 👁 10 views · 86 replies
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.🤣
Jerry Sanders4 said:Insecurity is a hell of a drug, and you can tell pretty quickly who’s actually read ambra...
the biggest issue was just his lack of self-awareness regarding how much Harmon absolutely outclassed him
but he couldn't bring himself to admit that, which is where everything starts falling apart...
People like that will stop at nothing to trash someone else just to make themselves look better...
And why on earth would Miro leak those transcripts????
There isn't a single logical reason for it.
Charles Brown9 said: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:Go ahead, read the thread and try to provide an answer. It won't be long before some new "Ankica Lepej" emerges from the woodwork to claim they've finally identified the rightful owner of the royalties.
Casey Ramos31 said:Why can't you just answer the damn question?
Casey Ramos31 said:Why can't you just answer the damn question?
Casey Ramos31 said:Why can't you just answer the damn question?
Matthew Castillo5 said:And why do you think that is? Because his entire job description is basically just stirring up mud in this place. ☕
gentleangler80 said:So, what kind of proof are we even talking about here when it comes to this betrayal of yours? Are you looking for physical evidence?
Jerry Robinson56 said:It is unlikely that any of us actually "possess" such things.
The parameters of this thread are strictly reserved for those who engage in critical thought, which you certainly do 🙂.
Let our thoughts wander through a field of sparse facts, and perhaps we will collectively arrive at a conclusion. Truth is invariably simple and sits right before our eyes; one merely needs to perceive it. The fact that an argument is old or "stale" is irrelevant, as the underlying principle remains unchanged.
The essential task here is to cast aside prejudices or ingrained narratives.
A prime example of planted evidence:
when a drunken Bandić was fleeing from the police. The officer who reported him was subsequently fired because he handed over a report to an unidentified person at an unspecified location and an unspecified time— 🤦
Or even more recent:
the head of organized crime at the FBI being held in investigative detention without a shred of evidence.
There is no evidence proving Mason is culpable, and a mountain of lies in other instances has already been debunked within this thread.
Mason is mentioned solely because the majority will reflexively type his name without a second thought.
The modus operandi is slightly understated in my writing, primarily because there isn't much intellectual depth to work with at these levels.
Regards.
Jerry Robinson56 said: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.
gentleangler80 said:So, basically, as far as we know, there isn't any direct physical evidence—aside from what was already brought up at the ICTY. There is some proof, if you can even call it that—which consists of statements from members of the 1st USAC unit, specifically the 4th Battalion. A few of those guys are close friends of mine, and honestly, I have zero reason to doubt what they're saying.
gentleangler80 said:So, basically, as far as we know, there isn't any direct physical evidence—aside from what was already brought up at the ICTY. There is some proof, if you can even call it that—which consists of statements from members of the 1st USAC unit, specifically the 4th Battalion. A few of those guys are close friends of mine, and honestly, I have zero reason to doubt what they're saying.
Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.
1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.
2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.
3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.
4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?
5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.
6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.
6.
Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.
1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.
2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.
3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.
4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?
5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.
6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.
6.
Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.
1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.
2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.
3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.
4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?
5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.
6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.
6.
Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.
1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.
2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.
3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.
4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?
5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.
6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.
6.
Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.
1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.
2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.
3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.
4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?
5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.
6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.
6.
Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.
1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.
2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.
3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.
4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?
5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.
6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.
6.
Mark Clark6 said:Quincy: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.
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?
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.
Mark Clark6 said:Quincy: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.
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?
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.
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.
Jerry Robinson56 said:🤔 Where exactly is the proof that Mason was the one who sent or even forwarded them? Furthermore, I find myself questioning what was actually "presented" in the first place.
So, can we perhaps expect some sort of official statement from your circle of friends?
An unidentified individual of short stature, driven by rather base impulses, intercepted and detained in the dead of night for the sole purpose of identity verification?
P.S. I find myself in need of your insights.
gentleangler80 said:Heh, I see you've got a sense of humor. So basically, it's insurance people claiming they showed up as investigators (foreigners) to go through documents. That's it. No questions asked.
Moving on, here’s a snippet from the prosecutor's book:
–On April 14, 2000, I reached out to President Mason and requested the audio recordings and transcripts from the meetings held in Harmon's office as soon as possible. By April 25, officials from the tribunal, including senior prosecutor Ken Scott and the head of the investigative team for cases against political and military leaders, Patrick Treanor, met with one of Mason's advisors. He handed over the evidence from the meetings and conversations recorded on tape in Harmon's office. Two days later, prosecution staff received the first set of transcripts.
On May 2, the prosecutor's analysts were driven in a van from Washington, D.C., to a secure location in a suburban US city to begin the secret analysis of documents from the paramilitary archives of the Canadian Americans.