Springtime 2020: temporarily, with the nine-hour not on WABC in New York, please go to WPRO in Providence.
For example: https://tunein.com/radio/997FM-630-AM-WPRO-s22039/
Springtime 2020: temporarily, with the nine-hour not on WABC in New York, please go to WPRO in Providence.
For example: https://tunein.com/radio/997FM-630-AM-WPRO-s22039/
Photo: A lavishly beautiful Haggadah from the correct era, although not the one currently on display in Sarajevo (q.v., below).
JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW
Co-host: Thaddeus McCotter, WJR, the Great Voice of the Great Lakes
Monday 12 March 2018 / Hour 1, Block A: Tom Joscelyn, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies; & Senior Editor for FDD's Long War Journal; in re: Al Qaeda. Zawahiri, the No. 2 guy now become No.1. He speaks to the Mahgreb (Mahgreb = West; everything west of Cairo) (Mashriq = East; everything Arab East of Cairo). . . . Where are they fighting? Skirmishes to battles — . .. watch ISIS on social media for its daily reports; marry these with independent reports out of Iraq or Syria and see that ISIS very much s not on its last legs. Al Q has relied more extensively on authority figures, whereas ISIS is focused less on personalities than on the caliphate.
Monday 12 March 2018 / Hour 1, Block B: Eric Felten, Weekly Standard, in re: Steele dossier. A Doozy of a Dossier The so-called “Trump dossier” continues to be the most important—and contested—document in the many probes of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. Since its publication by BuzzFeed on January 10, 2017—bearing the remarkable disclaimer that “the allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors”—it has set partisan hearts racing. Democrats have by and large treated it as a collection of solid leads in need of thorough investigation by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. Senator Dianne Feinstein is typical in claiming that “not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted.” Republicans, by contrast, see it as a partisan hit job and wonder what’s become of the FBI and the Justice Department when they start crediting salacious rumors strung together by a Trump opponent.
But thanks to the investigations it has spawned, we know a lot more about the provenance of the dossier than when it was first published, and it bears rereading in light of what we have since learned.
The dossier is a series of memos written from June to December 2016 by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, alleging a Trump/Kremlin conspiracy. Paying for Steele’s work was the opposition research company Fusion GPS; paying Fusion GPS was the law firm Perkins Coie [pron: coh-ee]; paying Perkins Coie were the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Given that Steele presents largely uncheckable allegations from anonymous sources, the reliability and credibility of the dossier has rested on the reliability and credibility that has been claimed for Steele himself. According to senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, during a briefing to senators in March 2017 then-director of the FBI James Comey vouched for Steele’s bona fides. In seeking a warrant from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on the communications of one-time Trump campaign aide Carter Page, the FBI had relied on the dossier, Comey told the senators, “because Mr. Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau.”
At a 2017 House hearing with Comey, Rep. Joaquin Castro began his assessment of the dossier by proclaiming his reliance on “the reputation of the author.” According to the Texas Democrat, the fact that “Christopher Steele is a former accomplished British intelligence officer with a career built on following Russia is important. This is not someone who doesn’t know how to run a source and not someone without contacts.” Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff has described Steele glowingly as “a former British intelligence officer, who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence.”
In all the scuffling over whether Clinton’s funding of the enterprise calls Steele’s credibility into question, little attention has been devoted to a more basic and obvious question posed by the dossier: How could a former spy in the U.K., in a matter of months, squeeze the highest ranks of the Russian government like a sponge and expose one of its most consequential and closely guarded schemes? Why do we pay CIA agents if a freelancer like Steele so easily runs circles around them?
Adding to the astonishing degree of difficulty of the trick, according to a fawning profile in the New Yorker, Steele hasn’t been to any former Soviet state, let alone Russia itself, since 2009. It’s a matter of personal safety—a contractor for his business-intelligence company warned him in 2012 that an agent of the FSB (the modern iteration of the KGB) had called Steele “an enemy of Mother Russia.” This is supposed to bolster the credibility of the dossier author. But it cuts the other way when it comes to the seeming ease with which Steele hoovered up information. Who in Moscow’s upper echelons is going to spill to “an enemy of Mother Russia”?
But spill, the dossier tells us, they did: The sources Steele describes are high-ranking. Source A is “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B is “a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin.” Source C is a “senior Russian financial official.” A “trusted compatriot” of Sources A and B is indiscreet enough to tell Steele that “the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for at least 5 years.” Source B blabbed “that the TRUMP operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir PUTIN.”
* * *
Let’s stop for a second and take that in. On the first page of the dossier, Steele claims to have gotten senior Russian officials and their trusted friends to chit-chat about a secret plan crafted for five years by no less than Putin himself. Given the relative trivialities that can get one beaten to death in a Russian prison, these senior officials would seem to have exhibited an extraordinarily cavalier attitude toward their own health and well-being.
Is it plausible? One skeptic is an American journalist with a decade’s experience working in Moscow. He points out the obvious: It can be dangerous to be a reporter in Russia and difficult to get sources with real information to share it. People asking questions of top officials and their associates don’t go unnoticed in Putin’s surveillance state, whether it’s someone on the phone from England or just a nosy local. “Nobody Steele could have sent or talked to could have done so without it immediately coming to the attention of Russian internal security,” says the journalist.
From the earliest days of the dossier inquiry, Russian security services would have had at least a couple of options: (1) They could have shut Steele down immediately, or (2) they could have taken the opportunity to feed him stories contrived to cause the most chaos and damage to the United States. The journalist says, “Whatever is in the dossier is there because Russia wanted it in the dossier.” Unless, he adds, Steele just made things up and never had any serious Russian sources for the material in the first place.
Before moving on, let’s consider one further curiosity: the famously lurid story that kicks off the dossier, in which Trump is said to have paid prostitutes to pee on his bed at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. Steele’s associates supposedly didn’t want to include it—too sensational, they thought. But ever the straight-shooter, according to a “longtime friend” quoted in the New Yorker, Steele thought that “the possibility of a potential American President being subject to blackmail was too important to hide.” But here we have another problem of plausibility: The dossier repeatedly treats “perverted sexual acts which have been arranged/monitored by the FSB” as the ultimate stuff of kompromat. Yet if Trump engaged in a multiyear criminal conspiracy with Russia, as the dossier claims, he exposed himself to blackmail by Putin on a scale that would make a library’s worth of pornographic surveillance videos trivial by comparison. And yet when it comes to Trump, our prurient spy friend keeps coming back to kinky sex as the gold-standard of kompromat.
Aside from the difficulty of clearing basic-believability hurdles, the dossier also appears to be padded. COMPANY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 2016/086—the memo following the water-sports piffle—provides “A SYNOPSIS OF RUSSIAN STATE SPONSORED AND OTHER CYBER OFFENSIVE [CRIMINAL] OPERATIONS.” The report is an exercise in recycling. Though the date built into the title of the memo is 2016, most of the information is boilerplate dated to 2015 and in content and tone appears to have been written for one of Steele’s run-of-the-mill business clients. Not only does it have no information about Trump, the memo doesn’t mention anything about the 2016 election, nor anything about election-meddling of any sort. Here and there, whoever took the report off the shelf remembered to update it with a bit of data marked 2016, but the giveaway comes at the end of the memo, where Steele always puts a specific date. The memo is dated “26 July 2015.”
There are glaring inconsistencies. Whereas in a June dossier entry, the Trump/Kremlin conspiracy is described as a five-year affair, by July Steele cites a “Source close to TRUMP campaign” that “regular exchange with Kremlin has existed for at least 8 years, including intelligence fed back to Russia on oligarchs’ activities in US.”
Five years—let alone eight—is an extraordinarily long time to maintain an international covert operation. And that’s assuming top-notch, tight-lipped tradecraft. How does a conspiracy last five days if it’s composed of Trump and associates on one end and loose-lipped Russians on the other? And what benefits was the Kremlin getting out of the bargain? Is it plausible that an FSB handler eager for info on oligarchs abroad would have recruited Donald Trump, in 2011 or 2008 or any other year, to keep tabs on them?
The one documented act of Russian footsie with Team Trump that we are so far aware of is the meeting Don Jr. took with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in June 2016. Somehow, the dossier missed that outreach (even though Veselnitskaya was also a client of Fusion GPS, the firm directly paying Steele for the dossier). We know that meeting happened, but it makes no sense in the context of the compromising relationship the dossier purports to have uncovered: If the Kremlin had been “cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years,” as the dossier summarized, why the sudden need to reach out to Don Jr.?
Time and again the dossier attributes to Trump feats of political trickeration that would be astonishing if performed by a disciplined and experienced organization. Nothing we have learned of the Trump campaign suggests either the discipline or the competence. Take the memo labeled COMPANY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 2016/095. It alleges not just the quite-creditable assertion that the Kremlin is “behind recent appearance of DNC emails on WikiLeaks” but the rather more difficult to credit claim that the Russian hacking relied on an “exchange of information established in both directions”—that is, help from the Republican candidate: “TRUMP’s team using moles within DNC and hackers in the US as well as outside in Russia.”
As impressive as it would be for an independent operator to have even a single high-placed Russian government source, from memo to memo in the dossier the super-secret sources just keep coming. Among them is a “longstanding compatriot friend” of “a Kremlin insider.” And that insider has blockbuster stuff. Such blockbuster stuff that one is left scratching one’s head over why the FBI was wasting its time with a piker like Carter Page.
On October 18, 2016, just three days before the FBI sought a FISA warrant to surveil Page, Steele delivered one of the dossier’s most shocking allegations: “a Kremlin insider with direct access to the leadership,” he wrote, “confirmed that a key role in the secret TRUMP campaign/Kremlin relationship was being played by the Republican candidate’s personal lawyer Michael COHEN.” Shocking, because unlike Carter Page—a figure distant from Trump in the first place and who by October 2016 had already left the campaign—Cohen couldn’t have been closer to the candidate. Shocking, because the dossier accused Page only of entertaining the possibility of a bribe in exchange for lifting sanctions in the then-unlikely event Trump were to win the White House. Cohen, by contrast, was said to be personally managing the years-long international conspiracy: A “Kremlin insider highlighted the importance of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s lawyer, Michael COHEN, in the ongoing secret liaison relationship between the New York tycoon’s campaign and the Russian leadership,” alleged a dossier memo dated October 19, 2016.
Cohen was said to be tasked with covering up the conspiracy and worse. The memo dated October 20, 2016, tells of Trump’s lawyer going to Prague for “secret meeting/s with Kremlin officials.” The dossier claimed he went there to arrange payoffs: “The agenda comprised questions on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the CLINTON campaign,” one memo specified, “and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow’s secret liaison with the TRUMP team more generally.” The hackers were “paid by both TRUMP’s team and the Kremlin.”
By mid-October, Carter Page was good and washed-up and Steele was reporting that all the action was with Michael Cohen. Nor would it be impossible to imagine Cohen as a bag man—the lawyer, after all, was the one who arranged to pay porn performer Stormy Daniels to keep mum about any affair she may have had years ago with Trump. And yet days after Steele pegged Cohen as the linchpin to the Kremlin/Trump conspiracy, the FBI relied heavily on the dossier to put in for a FISA warrant to sweep not Cohen’s communications but Page’s. Why?
Perhaps it’s because the dossier memos involving Cohen included readily checkable details. For example, according to the dossier, “COHEN’s wife is of Russian descent and her father a leading property developer in Moscow.” (His wife left Ukraine as a child 40 years ago; her father is not any sort of property developer in Moscow, let alone a “leading” one.) The dossier alleges Cohen skulked to Prague with some associates “either in the last week of August or the first week of September.” (Cohen has paraded his passport to prove he made no such trip.) Cohen has since brought defamation suits against Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed.
It’s quite possible the FBI didn’t seek a FISA warrant on Cohen because they discovered, rather quickly, that the claims against Trump’s lawyer did not square with the available evidence. If so, kudos to the FBI for professionalism. On the other hand, if what was checkable in the dossier so readily proved false, why present Steele’s work to the FISA court as reliable and credible when it came to surveilling Carter Page?
Does the dossier still matter? Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) told the New Yorker last week that “to impeach Steele’s dossier is to impeach Mueller’s investigation.” Which raises the question: Why is Sen. Whitehouse selling special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation so short?
If Mueller is half the professional he is advertised to be, he will look for provable facts, not the fancies peddled by Steele and his sources, such as they may be. The opposition researchers were paid to collect allegations damaging to team Trump; Mueller is charged with finding the truth. These are fundamentally different undertakings.
The dossier has launched investigations and lawsuits and thousands of arguments since its original publication. Rereading it now, in light of all that has subsequently come to pass, shows that the best summary of its contents is still the one BuzzFeed began with: The allegations remain unverified, and the report contains errors. And how. . . . www.weeklystandard.com/a-doozy-of-a-dossier/article/2011865
Monday 12 March 2018 / Hour 1, Block C: Gordon Chang, Daily Beast, in re: China and North Korea. The 5G network, bid for by Broadcom in Singapore for Qualcomm, in US. Should we allow this. Pres Trump used 1950 Act to prevent the proposed acquisition. Qualcomm is the only US network that has a chance of entering 5G, which is critical. Committee on Foreign Investments stopped it. If Qualcomm doesn't dominate 5G, HuaWei: they wanted to come in and buy American communications systems, were closely connected with the People’s Liberation Army. Great credit to Pres Trump for his wise and essential decision.
How’s that democratic capitalism doing in China? Not too well, esp under Xi Jinping.
If Broadcom bought Qualcomm, Broadcom would be domiciled in the US (but of course controlled by the PLA, and this the man to whom the Chinese military swore absolute fealty, Xi Jinping).
If Xi controls the Party and the Party controls the economy . . . National Supervisory [group]; Xi is becoming the state, himself. Heading to not a one-party state but a one-man state. Not much opposition inside China (deathly dangerous); but overseas Chinese students in the US and Canada are sending out #NotMyPresident and similar tweets.
Monday 12 March 2018 / Hour 1, Block D: Claudia Rosett, Independent Women’s Forum, and Gordon Chang, Daily Beast, in re: North Korea. Pres Trump to meet with Little Rocket Man. Where? Umm – the dictators’s handbook says: “Don't leave home turf; you never know what the boys might be up to behind your back.” Elizabeth Warren and other Trump detractors say: This is ineffective madness. Trumpits say: It’s Trump’s genius and wonderfully successful. I agree with none of them.
I think regime change is the only answer. North Korea wants a peace treaty to remove US troops and then continue infiltrating the South. Were they to get that, it’d be very bad. If they get a deal over a nuclear climb-down: how to enforce and inspect. I think they're buying time already — they know they're safe for the next few weeks, at least. The longer they string it along, the better for them. Recall that the offer has not been officially made by the DPRK, which has an ambassador at the UN. Instead, they’ve used Moon Jae-in’s staff as water-carriers. DPRK has had three nuke tests, and successful rocket tests over Japan, and now is having a charm offensive. They may have been ready to pause anyway – their nuclear scientists needed to have lunch, review specs, and sell them to the Iranians. . . . Maybe two years from now we’ll have a Qadaffi celebration.
Monday 12 March 2018 / Hour 2, Block A: IDT NEWS: Larry Kudlow, long-term friend of this program, is said by Reuters to be the leading candidate for Gary Cohn’s post.
David M Drucker, Washington Examiner, and John Fund, NRO, in re: Pennsylvania’s 18 District, SW PA, incl Pittsburgh, will disappear moments after the vote tomorrow. An attractive Marine vet is running as a nearly-Republican, but under the Democratic Party line. . . . A lot of Republicans have no experience of having a hard time. . . . GOP: talk about the economy and tariffs. . . . The former Dem Party is gone; it's now a left-wing party. . . . Trump went from reality TV to the presidency; Obama went from the presidency to Netflix.
Monday 12 March 2018 / Hour 2, Block B: David M Drucker, Washington Examiner, and John Fund, NRO, in re: USA Today says: California should be treated as an insurrection – when Jerry Brown thumbs his nose at the feds, it hearkens back to the civil war,. When the mayor of Oakland warns illegal aliens of an impending ICE raid, looks as though California is trying to secede. . . . I tried to quote some of my Cali friends, who refused out of fear of retaliation in the Bay Area. May there are either going silent or preparing to move out of the state. “This visit is a political stunt around a political boondoggle” —anent the president’s first visit to California. Will go to Miramar and then a Beverly Hills fundraiser. He might bring a lot of money – but will the attendees want their names to be public? Probably hiding. . . . President will have great visuals – in front of prototypes of his wall, and other fetching photo ops.
Monday 12 March 2018 / Hour 2, Block C: Malcolm Hoenlein, Conference of Presidents, in re: . . . demanding significant changes in the Iran deal (Europeans object, of course). Netanyahu is very concerned about an arms race; in DC, spoke abt Saudi Arabia. Secy Perry: a 25-year deal costing billions.
Iraq: Iran is inducting 60,000-plus Shi’a militia members (sometimes called the Hezbollah Brigades) into its armed forces. Iranian-backed and –trained forces; perhaps 90,000 in Syria; will be given salaries and training; formalizing and legitimizing rogue elements. Far more difficult to root them out in future. In Syria, removal of these troops is critical to security in Jordan and Israel. US is diminishing its use of Incirlik in Turkey. Major changes across the region.
Palestinian Authority has rejected a humanitarian conference on Gaza because Abbas and Hams both do not want to deal with the US; water runs out in 20202; misuse of funds by PA and Hamas for military purposes rather than the needs of the people. PA kleptocracy: Abbas has extended the tenure of his close associate, he head of the corruption investigation, contrary to Pal. law – to protect his sons from investigation. Just built a super-luxe palace for $13 mil. In reaction to public disapproval may turn it into a library. The people think that Abbas’s treatment in the US was for ulcers, not stomach cancer. ____ just had a major heart operation in the US.
ISIS in Sinai: can infiltrate by the sea route or through Egypt. Cairo is much concerned, has invest a good deal in the fight against ISIS and is doing a pretty good job. A lot of the ISIS fighters are coming out of Syria and various other countries, incl about 60 Israeli Arabs who went in 2016, but not in 207 because they realized there was no future there.
Putin said to Megyn Kelly that the people who interfered in the US election were foreigners – may Ukrainians, or Tatars, or Jews. Reminiscent of highly problematic Russian tropes from past pogroms.
Monday 12 March 2018 / Hour 2, Block D: Indiana Hoenlein, Conference of Presidents, in re: A Byzantine-period ring from the Fourth Century AD with a depiction of St Nicholas (of Turkey) holding a bishop’s crook on it was found by a farmer in Israel on a kibbutz on the main highway, near Megiddo (Armageddon). Farmer was weeding, saw something in the ground, saw a human image of a bald man. St Nicholas was the patron saint of travellers.
A Fourteenth-Century Hagaddah was fund in Sarajevo. Printed on bleached calf skin and illuminated in colors and gold. It was hidden by a museum director from the Nazis in a mountain hut ;was later stolen, recovered, hidden again, and kept in a safe. Finally, with financing by the French government, it's on display, Is deeply beautiful; if you go to Bosnia, go look. Even the copy that the Bosnian govt kindly gave me is brilliant. Richard Holbrooke spent years organizing this. Out of 12,00 who did not return from the Nazis, 800 Jews are now living in Bosnia.
Monday 12 March 2018/ Hour 3, Block A: Aaron Klein, Breitbart Middle East bureau chief, in re: Steele dossier. Who were Steele’s sources? Sen Grassley’s inquiries to London and US political actors. Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, worth about $6.4 Billion. According to numerous profiles: “Putin’s favorite oligarch.” Has worked for the Russian Federation. Founded Basic Element company – mfrs and deals in aluminum, nuclear, hydropower, automobiles, and dozens of other activities. Tried to buy Daimler Chrysler. Deripaska’s connections to those connected to Steele.
Christopher Steele says he does “opposition research,” whereas he really does hit jobs with works of fiction. He owns Orbis Business Ltd, which does bz intell. Was Steele working for Deripaska at the same time he was compiling the notorious dossier? A letter as also sent to Perkins Coie LLP [pron: coh-ee] (Mark Elias) law firm, and ___, and others, asking them to preserve their comms with Steele. Sources A, B and C. Payments for the dossier came from H Clinton campaign via the DNC. Was Steele handed propaganda by a major Russian oligarch that wound up in the dossier? FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe . . .
Jonathan Winer: heavily redacted doc from House Intell Committee ; Winer also rcd over 100 docs from Steele; says he was passing n Steele docs to State for over two years., incl the shockingly digraced Victoria Nuland (apologies: she barked into an unencrypted mobile phone in Ukraine, “F--- the Europeans” and of course was outed by Moscow to the great annoyance and amusement of people worldwide.) Jonathan M. Winer, Esq, worked for a small firm owned by Deripaska. Not much is proven here – but a lot of smoke in the room.
Monday 12 March 2018/ Hour 3, Block B: Aaron Klein, Breitbart Middle East bureau chief, in re: Steele dossier. Who were Steele’s sources? Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska. FISA warrant abuses of 2016. Mr Mueller. Paul Manafort was advising pro-Russian forces in Ukraine for how much? Nineteen million? The dispute traces back to the Caymans, is still going on. Sen Mark Warner, top Dem on Senate Intell Cee: Fox News obtained leaked text msgs ’twixt Warner and Waldman, lawyer in London, on efforts by Warner to arrange to meet Steele. More smoke.
Steele pops up in Rome. In dossier, there are names spelled wrong, people alleged to have visited countries which they can prove they’d never gone to. Even John McCain’s name is in here: he sent a possibly bogus doc to the FBI. Deripaska: why would he play such pranks if he did? What might be the motive of Russia in general? In fact, it was likely that Moscow figured it could do business better with Trump than with Clinton. . . . Glenn Simpson.
Monday 12 March 2018/ Hour 3, Block C: Andrew C McCarthy, NRO, and former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; and Thaddeus McCotter, WJR, The Great Voice of the Great Lakes; in re: Transition from Russiagate to FISA-gate. Sen Grassley’s memo, with countervailing memo from Adam Schiff: unverified and salacious dossier. Messrs Goodlatte and Gowdy have both spoken out in favor of a second Special Counsel for FISA. Andy McCarthy says; No special counsel. Instead, an investigation by a solid prosecutor affiliated with the Justice Dept. Congressmen Gowdy and Goodlatte are 100% right in the need for [investigation]. . . . Mueller seems to be accountable to no one, and is chasing off to the Seychelles, or Manafort’s laundry—all leaked to us from Mueller. “Personnel is policy”: Deputy AG Rosenstein has chosen to be passive; derelict for not being more hands-on in this. Lets Mueller have carte blanche for wherever he wants to go without having to come back to Justice.
When a Special Counsel is appointed, the appointer has a strong interest in having a favorable outcome.
Monday 12 March 2018/ Hour 3, Block D: Andrew C McCarthy, NRO, and former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; and Thaddeus McCotter, WJR, The Great Voice of the Great Lakes; in re: FISA court. Internal investigation: needs to be thoroughgoing. How do you convince he public that the Justice Dept can investigate its AG, and previous Deputy AGs going back, and a candidate for the presidency, and others? Start by picking the right person; then, it’s a matter of how the investigation is conducted. Need someone credible. . . . Difference between violating internal FBI or DoJ regulations, and an actual crime. Leaking classified info is a black-and-white crime. Anent criminal wiretaps: . . . I’ve heard on instance of a prosecutor being indicted for failing to convey essential info to the court, but the prosecution lost.
Monday 12 March 2018/ Hour 4, Block A: Barry Strauss, Death of Caesar (part one of eight). Ides of March.
Monday 12 March 2018/ Hour 4, Block B: Barry Strauss, Death of Caesar (part two of eight). Ides of March.
Monday 12 March 2018/ Hour 4, Block C: Gregory Copley, Editor-in-Chief of Defense & Foreign Affairs, in re: Russia. The dossier.
Monday 12 March 2018/ Hour 4, Block D: Gregory Copley, Editor-in-Chief of Defense & Foreign Affairs, in re: Russia. The dossier.
.. .. ..