My Stuff

Coming Soon:

Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."

Total Pageviews

Monday, December 4, 2023


I had been hoping that Trump would be trapped in the January 6 trial for six weeks or longer, forced to sit in the courtroom and listen to the case proceed against him. But I checked online, and apparently the answer is that he is not so forced. So long as he is present at the beginning of the trial, and voluntarily chooses to leave, he may do so and leave it to his lawyers to defend him. Pity, I had great hopes for the Spring.


David Palmeter said...

The good news is that the witnesses against him are likely to be less intimidated without him sitting there and scowling at them.

David Zimmerman said...

Isn't the defendant in a criminal case required to attend his own trial? Are you sure you are not confusing this with a civil trial?

Robert Paul Wolff said...

I just repeat what I find online. Apparently in a non-capital criminal case, the defendant does not have to be there during the trial. I was very surprised by that.

David Zimmerman said...


Is this the article you read?,legal%20hearings%2C%20and%20sentencing%20corrections.

The gist seems to be that --though a criminal trial can proceed if it has already begun with the defendant in attendance at the earlier stages --the defendant nonetheless is not permitted to absent himself. That would entail that Trump is not allowed simply to take time off to hit the campaign trail.

The point of the article of law discussed (and the "waivers") is that the defendant's absence shall not impede the continuation of the trial, NOT that the defendant is allowed to absent himself.

Barney Wolff said...

You do have another source of trustworthy, and presumably free, legal advice. :)

David Zimmerman said...

Lawfare is pretty good on such matters.

Robert Paul Wolff said...

I asked him via email this morning, Barney, but I think he is teaching today and has not yet answered.

David Zimmerman said...

More disappointment:

Anonymous said...

It seems like Leiter was taken in by it? Must say I was most disappointed too. For a brief moment I was thinking with what remains of my aged brain that the best is yet to come.

David Zimmerman said...

From The Guardian":

"State Department Approves Sale Of Tank Ammunition To Israel In Deal That Bypasses Congress
Bypassing Congress with emergency determinations for arms sales is an unusual step that has in the past met resistance from lawmakers."

How does one vote for Biden in 2024 without gagging?

Michael Llenos said...

By realizing that gagging on Sirloin Biden is more palatable than gagging on T-bone Trump.

s. wallerstein said...

David Zimmerman,

The Democrats have already started a campaign in the liberal mainstream media to convince voters that Trump this time will be a real fascist dictador, not just someone who talks like one from time to time, but the real thing and that if Trump is re-elected, bye bye democracy and thus, while Biden may be backing what more or more seems to be genocide in Gaza (yes, I said the word), Trump is a million times worse: he's the 2023 version of Hitler.

Hannah Arendt remarks that thus who opt for the lesser evil tend to forget that it's evil.

Eric may be right after all.

s. wallerstein said...

my error

Arendt remarks that those who opt, not "thus".

aaall said...

s.w., you might google "project 2025" and "schedule F." Back in 2001 (you know, after the coup by the Gang of Five Supremes), Karl Rove had his Project 2020. More or less ending democracy in the U.S. has been a far right dream since the Liberty League. While the New Deal dispensation spoiled that dream for a season, forty years of neo-liberalism and demographics got things back on track.

Your "Democratic campaign" is just folks finally waking up to what Trump, Heritage, etc. are actively planning.

This world is a cold hard place. If Hezbollah decides to take advantage of a shortage of 120s, Israel has other options which I assume is something Biden is aware of. The Houthis are lobbing drones and missiles at ships and Eilat and Israel likely has a sub or two with nukes in the Indian Ocean, what could go wrong?

What leverage the U.S. has with Israel isn't going to be enhanced voting aye on performative resolutions at the U.N. or getting heavy-handed too soon. Israel is a nuclear state currently run by corrupt and stupid religious nut cases while Hamas loves them some martyrs. Iran and Hamas played Israel and Bibi fell for it. Of course the U.S. has total agency here and has only to issue orders and all will be well. After all, deposing Mosaddegh seemed like a simple fix.

Israel is yet another failed 19th century pie in the sky idea that isn't going away.

David Palmeter said...

David Zimmerman,

"How does one vote for Biden in 2024 without gagging?"

It's easy. Just think about Trump. Comparing Biden's short-comings with Trump's is like comparing hang nails to cancer.

David Zimmerman said...

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I plan to gag mightily in the voting booth (actually via absentee ballot) in November 2024.

Fritz Poebel said...

I see that the president of UPenn has resigned in the wake of her appearance before The House Committee on Un-American Activities. Maybe they can go after Mearsheimer and Juan Cole next. Hiss, hiss.

s. wallerstein said...

David Zimmerman,

If I voted in U.S. elections, I might end up voting for Biden myself.

However, the Trump threat literally allows the Democrats to get away with murder.

If Trump didn't exist, the Democrats would have had to invent him.

David Zimmerman said...

"However, the Trump threat literally allows the Democrats to get away with murder."

SW: That is a genuine and very depressing insight.

aaall said...

"However, the Trump threat literally allows the Democrats to get away with murder."

That makes no sense. Absent Trump we would have Nikki Haley who is a stone neo-con. Given 10/07 and the current Israeli government, the only way way to stop (as opposed to merely hectoring) Israel would be the use of force. Absent enabling legislation, unilaterally cutting off arms would arguably violate U.S. law.

We should have marked our relationship to Israel to market after its nineties political heel turn but neither party was willing to go there.

BTW, I have to note that folks who were so concerned about a nuclear response with Putin and Ukraine seem oblivious to Israel's options.

David Zimmerman said...

Perhaps SW should have said that "...the Trump threat literally allows the Democrats to ASSIST THE ISRAELIS in getting away with murder in Gaza."

Michael Llenos said...

Marc submitted a letter that will be published by "the Washtenaw Jewish News in its January, 2024 issue."

Download his letter in #14 Marc Susselman's Correspondences here:


Michael Llenos said...


David Zimmerman said...

"Secretary of State Antony Blinken defended the U.S. government’s decision to, for the second time, veto the United Nations Security Council’s resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, as Israel continues to kill and displace tens of thousands of Palestinians."

Michael Llenos said...

Is the IDF ground invasion necessary? Some say no, and some say yes. These are the two main reasons why it's going on in the first place:

(1) You can't send a S.W.A.T. team into enemy occupied land to apprehend suspects.

(2) A Special Forces rescue might turn into another Mogadishu.

David Zimmerman said...

To Michael L:

For your information, Gaza is not "enemy occupied land"... it is Palestinian land, which Israeli is invading, and Hamas (whatever one thinks of it) is defending.

And, speaking of "occupied land"... Israel is the illegal occupier of the West bank.

LFC said...

Michael L.

I see, in skimming through Marc Susselman's latest #14 at yr site, that he says Liz Magill is not a lawyer.

Hello? Earth to Susselman. Magill is in fact a legal academic, con law scholar, former clerk to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former dean of Stanford Law School. Her answers in that viral exchange w the odious Rep. Stefanik were legally correct, though not great from a "messaging" standpoint.

aaall said...

Sorry DZ, "assist" doesn't improve matters. Way too much agency is still being assigned to the U.S. You might consider that a permanent (or lengthy) cease fire would mean curtains for Bibi and he isn't going there. Unless the U>S. is willing to do some wet work there is no way he lets go.

Also, I imagine that Biden an State are wary of pulling another Acheson and acting or saying things that might encourage a wider conflict. While the consensus seems to be that the effect of Acheson's speech had little or no effect on Kim/Stalin's decision to invade South Korea. The folks currently at State are cautious to a fault, e.g. Ukraine.

Also, also you might remember the Liberty and Bibi dissing Obama. Israel isn't Belarus.

Michael Llenos said...


'For your information, Gaza is not "enemy occupied land"... it is Palestinian land, which Israeli is invading, and Hamas (whatever one thinks of it) is defending.'

--What I meant is that you can't send in the Israeli cops into Gaza to arrest suspects because Hamas would stop them immediately. Hamas is the enemy of the Israelies. And they controlled the land in northern Gaza before the invasion. Hence "enemy occupied land."

s. wallerstein said...

Everybody or almost everybody who comments here is going to end up supporting Biden.

Biden has given a green light to Israeli genocide in Gaza. The U.S. was the only nation in the U.N. Security Council to vote against a ceasefire on Friday.

So why insist that Biden isn't backing genocide or serious war crimes if you refuse the category of genocide?

You guys already have our vote. Be content with that. If you keep insisting on what a wonderful person Biden is (when he obviously isn't), you'll just alienate many of us and we might end up backing Cornel West. A word to the wise.

Eric said...

aaall: Absent enabling legislation, unilaterally cutting off arms would arguably violate U.S. law.

Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.

Michael Llenos said...

Command Decisions

You're Benjamin Netanyahu. Hamas terrorists torture & kill many hundreds of Israeli citizens on October 7th, and retreat with hostages back into Hamas controlled territory. You can't send in the Israeli police to arrest the Hamas molesters, rape gang members, torturers, hostage takers, & murderers. You know that rescuing the hostages is impossible with Special Forces. What do you do? Send in the IDF Army (which is your only physical alternative) or let the terrorists go scott free & tell the Israelies you can do nothing?

[Now let's dissect what is really going on here. Palestinian civilians are getting bombed a great deal in Gaza. That is a neutral truth. That's the only thing we know about Gaza presently. Other than that do we know the reasons for that and what is really going on over there? Nope. There is a Fog of War right now for the entire television\internet watching planet over the two sides of this conflict. Those against all military conflict (and those who hate the Jews) have decided to take the Palestinian side no matter what. And those who favor Israel (or believe Hamas is the real aggressor) side with Israel & the IDF. However, a third faction has come onto the scene. Those people who want all of the hostages back no matter what. Machiavelli might say Fortuna will decide the true victors, and History will decide who was truly just or not. But not yet.]

David Palmeter said...

“Genocide” is a legal name for killing a national, racial or religious group with intent to destroy it. Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinians (although I suspect the Netanyahu and his crew wouldn’t weep if that were to happen.) Israel is engaged in a counter attack against Hamas (which was voted into control of Gaza by the Palestinian voters). The conflict started with Hamas’ unprovoked attack on Israel, killing more than a thousand and taking several hundred hostages, most of whom have not been returned. Palestinian civilians are tragically in the way.

I’m sure that many will disagree with my view. To them I ask: What would have been an appropriate Israeli response to Hamas’ attack? How would that protect Israel from it happening again?

aaall said...

"What would have been an appropriate Israeli response to Hamas’ attack?"

Fire BIbi and jail him then fix and properly man the border and focus on getting the hostages back. Then target overseas sources of Hamas funding and Hamas leadership in and out of Gaza. Also, had the Israeli government been paying attention there wouldn't have been an attack so fix intelligence. As it stands, Israel has just produced another generation of terrorists.

"you'll just alienate many of us and we might end up backing Cornel West."

When children get angry and frustrated they sometimes smash their own toys. If only the U.S. had that much agency.

Eric, once you burn the bridge what's to keep Israel from using nukes to stop Hezbollah who will no doubt be encouraged.


22 U.S. Code § 8602 - Statement of policy

It is the policy of the United States:
(1) To reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. As President Barack Obama stated on December 16, 2011, “America’s commitment and my commitment to Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable.” And as President George W. Bush stated before the Israeli Knesset on May 15, 2008, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, “The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty.”.
(2) To help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation.
(3) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.
(4) To support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.
(5) To pursue avenues to expand cooperation with the Government of Israel both in defense and across the spectrum of civilian sectors, including high technology, agriculture, medicine, health, pharmaceuticals, and energy.
(6) To assist the Government of Israel with its ongoing efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
(7) To encourage further development of advanced technology programs between the United States and Israel given current trends and instability in the region.
(Pub. L. 112–150, § 3, July 27, 2012, 126 Stat. 1147.)

Michael Llenos said...

Politicians have to realize that if there exists a radical regime change in Iran, money for Hamas & Hezbollah will eventually dry up. There are some Democrats in favor of the Iranian government for I know not what reason? Probably so Israel gets into trouble. The current Iranian government's prosperity will be used to ruin Israel. It's probably easier to defeat Hamas & Hezbollah through a regime change in Iran than through any suppression of a Palestinian uprising in Gaza or the West Bank. The reason Democrats don't want to discuss this is probably because Donald Trump wants to topple the current Iranian government & he wants to be POTUS. The irony of it all is that the man who can prosper Israel is the very same man that can become the First United States Dictator. Even if it's just for one day like he states.


When Marc wrote that it was the 9th of December. You found out about Liz Magill being a constitutional lawyer on the 10th. More information came out on the internet on the 10th. Especially in news articles on the web. And Marc didn't correct himself on the 10th since it wasn't a mistake on his part that reporters were finally learning & writing more about Liz Magill on the 10th.

s. wallerstein said...

David Palmeter,

I agree with the measures that Aaal outlines above. However, maybe the question is not what Israel should have done post October 7, but rather what they should have done pre October 7.

For example, get out of the territories that they occupied in the 1967 War, stop and dismantle the settlements on the West Bank, end apartheid and discrimination towards Palestinians both in Israel and in the occupied territories, etc.

As W.H. Auden's poem points out, "those to whom evil is done/do evil in return".

Thus, over 50 years of brutal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories produce psychopathic violent terrorist reactions such as those of October 7.

It is a serious mistake to frame October 7 as if a peaceful nation, minding its own business, in this case, Israel, had been attacked by crazy neighbors for no reason at all.

David Zimmerman said...

From Leiter Reports:

+972 Magazine
Yuval Abraham
November 30, 2023

"Compared to previous Israeli assaults on Gaza, the current war...has seen the army significantly expand its bombing of targets that are not distinctly military in nature. These include private residences as well as public buildings, infrastructure, and high-rise blocks, which sources say the army defines as “power targets” (“matarot otzem”).  The bombing of power targets, according to intelligence sources who had first-hand experience with its application in Gaza in the past, is mainly intended to harm Palestinian civil society: to “create a shock” that, among other things, will reverberate powerfully and “lead civilians to put pressure on Hamas,” as one source put it....The Israeli army has files on the vast majority of potential targets in Gaza — including homes — which stipulate the number of civilians who are likely to be killed in an attack on a particular target. This number is calculated and known in advance to the army’s intelligence units, who also know shortly before carrying out an attack roughly how many civilians are certain to be killed.  In one case discussed by the sources, the Israeli military command knowingly approved the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in an attempt to assassinate a single to Hamas military commander."

So much for Israeli claims about avoiding civilian casualties.....

David Palmeter said...

aaall, sw, and anyone else:

I think it's important to keep in mind that that there was cease fire in place, and Hamas broke it. It is reasonable, in my view, for Israel to want to destroy Hamas' ability to do that again. A cease fire now would not do that.

It isn't enough to say what Israel should have done in the past. The question is what should they have done after the cease fire was broken with an Hamas attack that killed 1,200+, some of them brutally, to children has hostages, burned babies and took a couple of hundred hostages, including children? And how would Israel go about eliminating Hamas leadership outside of Gaza without dangerously broadening the war?

Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D. said...

The notion that Israel is committing genocide is wrong, as Mr. Palmeter has noted. That Hamas hides its rocket launching sites in populated areas means that counter battery fire will inevitably kill civilians. It says nothing about Israel and everything about Hamas. I called Hamas a death cult, a designation it richly deserves. Consider that 1) they want to eliminate Jews and 2) are willing to kill exponentially more of the people they ostensibly govern than the enemy. By any standard that is insane.

Michael Llenos said...

I wonder if Israel's strategy with the PRESS is the right one? Little information and operational planning goals released. Probably to keep the Element of Surprise.


I can’t believe it! Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D., finally wrote something with which I totally agree. I hope it is not an imposter. Some may even think it is I, writing under his name.

Thank you Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D.

David Zimmerman said...

Michael L:

You really should inform the people on this blog that you have just cut and pasted the banned Marc Susselman's comment about Mulvaney.

Minor shame on you.

anon. said...

Those who get all hot and bothered about where Hamas secretes its weapons should keep in mind that this is something probably most insurgencies do. Certainly it was the case during the days of the Stern gang and the like -- now that they've been in government for quite some time, no need for so much subterfuge nuclear waepons aside.

s. wallerstein said...


Thanks for the link. An article worth reading.

Eric said...

David Palmeter: I think it's important to keep in mind that that there was cease fire in place, and Hamas broke it.

That statement is very misleading, if not incorrect.

Eric said...

Per the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, on November 30:

"While the humanitarian pause that started on 24 November has largely held, sporadic incidents have been reported. On 29 November, at about 18:00, Israeli troops reportedly opened fire at Palestinians in northern Gaza city, killing two of them; the circumstances remain unclear. On 30 November, additional shooting incidents were reported in Gaza city, as well as shelling by the Israeli navy towards the Gaza shore in the south, none of which resulted in casualties."

During the extension of the original ceasefire, on Weds Nov 29 Israel raided a refugee camp in Jenin, in the West Bank, arresting 17 Palestinians and killing two men Israel said were part of the resistance, including one whom they said was a key leader. Two boys, 8 and 15, were killed when one was shot in the head and the other in the chest. Residents of Jenin told reporters that the area had been experiencing nightly raids.

The following day, two Palestinians shot and killed 3 Israelis at a Jerusalem bus stop (a bystander who shot at the Palestinians was also mistakenly killed by an Israeli). The Palestinian shooters were killed. Hamas issued a statement saying that "the Jerusalem shooting operation came as a natural response to the unprecedented crimes committed by Israel in Gaza and against children in Jenin."

(Note, however, with regard to these incidents, the ceasefire terms were for operations in Gaza, not necessarily the West Bank.)

On Wednesday, Hamas released 16 hostages in total: 10 Israeli women & children, 2 Israeli-Russian dual-national women, and 4 others.

On Thursday, the last day of the extension, Hamas released 8 Israeli hostages and offered to release the bodies of a woman and her two children who had died. (As reported by Reuters & multiple other sources, "Israeli officials accepted eight rather than 10 hostages because Hamas on Wednesday released two extra hostages, the Qatari spokesperson said." *)

Despite attempting negotiations throughout the night Thursday, they could not reach an agreement to continue the ceasefire. Israel said that Hamas violated the agreement by refusing to release all of the women being held. Hamas said that the agreement had included only civilian women, not female IDF soldiers Israel was now insisting be released, and that Israel was refusing to accept male hostages whom Hamas was proposing to release.

The ceasefire was officially supposed to end at 7:00 am. Israelis reported that rocketfire from Gaza resumed about an hour earlier. By that point, Israel had already made clear that they were not going to accept Hamas' proposed hostage releases, and that their intention was to resume military operations until the completed all of their objectives, which include the destruction of Hamas and complete pacification of Gaza.

Eric said...

* Example of misleading NPR coverage:

"Israel had agreed to prolong the truce if Hamas turned over an additional 10 hostages per day in exchange for 30 Palestinians. But on Thursday, in the final exchange under the extension, Hamas released only eight captives."

Anonymous said...

You might also comment on the rather spurious nature of those released by the Israelis, Eric. A bit of a cat and mouse game. But are we really permitted to talk of Israeli perfidy? That odious congressperson might come after us

LFC said...

M. Llenos:

Actually I learned about Magill's background by looking at her Wikipedia entry; someone online had referred to her as a lawyer and I was curious about her résumé/experience.

Anonymous said...

Hi Professor Wolff, since you haven’t posted in a few days, I just wanted to check if all is going well for you?

aaall said...


aaall said...

Interesting article and more questions for the folks in charge:

"In any case, ex-senior members of the Israeli intelligence and counterterror services stress that the dismantling of Mossad's Harpoon unit was a mistake – and if anything it should have been reinforced. One of the questions that will need answering is why this unit was dismantled and absorbed into the Defense Ministry."

As I've been pointing out:

"Russian officials have joined other countries in expressing concern over the remarks of an Israeli junior minister who appeared to express openness to the idea of Israel carrying out a nuclear strike on Gaza, saying that it raises a 'huge number of questions'."

Hezbollah is a real army and has ~150,000 real missiles. If the U.S. cut off conventional weapons and Hezbollah decided to take advantage, what would Israel's options be? If Biden opens with, "Bibi we've got to cut you off'" and Bibi replies with the obvious raise, where does that go?

LFC said...


You seem to miss the point that the U.S., in the view of many observers and some legislators, should condition military aid to Israel as a way of exercising influence on Israeli policy and actions. The U.S. has certainly done this w/ other countries. Or it should use existing legislation, such as the Leahy law, which I think was quoted upthread. The notion that the U.S. cannot or should not exercise any meaningful leverage over Israel lest it resort to the "nuclear option" seems to me to be something of a red herring.

aaall said...

My point is that Israel has political and military options that most other nations don't have and which options complicate how we exercise what agency we may have. I assume that at some point the back and fourths will come out.

Folks had their hair on fire over Putin tossing some nukes over aid to Ukraine. I do have to wonder why they are so sanguine with Israel. If cutting Israel off leads Hezbollah to attack from the north plus cover Israel with their 150K missiles what happens? Of course, none of the principle actors on both sides are wired right.,vid:3SbLKl4C5Rw,st:0

charles Lamana said...

LFC said that AAAll's remark about Israel resorting to the "Nuclear option" as something of a red herring, I agree. According to Scott Ritter Israel does not want to start a war with Hezbollah since Hezbollah has tons of precision missiles that could hit Israel and do great damage.
Also if Israel attempted to use Nuclear weapons against Hezbollah, Pakistan would likely respond in kind.
I say this knowing that I am a pre-novice, with much to learn.

David Zimmerman said...

This talk of Israel using the atomic (hydrogen?) bomb against Gaza or Lebanon ignores the fact that both are contiguous with Israel. Geography and radioactive fallout being what they are, any use of the bomb against such neighbouring areas would be suicidal for Israel.

On the other hand, Netanyahu and the fasciists in his cabinet may just be suicidal enough....

Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D. said...

David Zimmerman,
I did notice Michael L.'s use of a comment by a banned commentator. His behavior lacks class, to say the least. I am also quite sure that Mr. Llenos has no idea what I think about anything.

I am not hot and bothered about Hamas and it's weapons storage except that they offer up the people they rule, the non combatants, up as martyrs to their cause. I am also very aware that when the IRA wanted weapons they stole them from the police and they didn't hide them in the homes of noncombatants. Hamas fires its weapons from the back yards of apartment buildings hence guaranteeing thousand of unnecessary martyrs.

So there is no doubt by anyone of my views of either side of this conflict consider my favorite quote line from Pascal : “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” Pensee’s, 1670

aaall said...

DZ, Israel likely has tactical nukes and neutron bombs. Air bursts would limit fallout and I believe the areas contiguous to Lebanon have been mostly evacuated. My concern isn't necessarily Israel declaring war on Hezbollah although given the present government... If Israel's stock of conventional weapons fell below doctrinal levels, Iran/Hezbollah might be tempted to take advantage and lacking other options Israel would have no other choice. Scott Ritter, really?

Also Israel has several state of the art submarines (diesel electric) and its likely at least one is currently in the Arabian/Indian Oceans or the Persian Gulf allowing access to Yemen and Iran (as well as concentrating Pakistan's mind). These subs are nuclear capable and have been previously observed in the Indian Ocean launching missiles on training exercises.

Interesting website:

Michael Llenos said...

"I am also quite sure that Mr. Llenos has no idea what I think about anything."

BTW, when you said "his behavior lacks class" did you mean my behavior or Marc's? I think you meant mine.

J. Fleming said...

Palmeter and Mulvaney...these Israeli Holocaust scholars are calling it a genocide.Omer Bartov (Hebrew: עֹמֶר בַּרְטוֹב, [ʕoˈmer ˈbartov]; born 1954) is an Israeli-born historian. He is the Samuel Pisar Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University, where he has taught since 2000.[1] Bartov is a noted historian of the Holocaust and is considered one of the world's leading authorities on genocide.[2][3] The Forward calls him "one of the foremost scholars of Jewish life in Galicia."[4]
Raz Segal (Hebrew: רז סגל) is an Israeli historian residing in the United States who is Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Endowed Professor in the Study of Modern Genocide at Stockton University, where he also directs the Master of Arts in Holocaust and Genocide Studies program.[1][2] He has written multiple books about the Holocaust in Carpathian Ruthenia, based on analysis of primary and secondary sources in Hebrew, English, German, Yiddish and Hungarian.[3]

Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D. said...

Mr. Llenos,
You would be correct.

J. Fleming said...

This 44 page document is replete with documentation.

Pedro Santa Cruz said...

🇦🇫🇦🇸🇦🇶🇦🇶🇦🇼🇧🇸🇧🇾🇧🇲🇧🇼🇧🇳Highly Recommended!
Very insightful, i will also say this here. Investment is one of the best ways to achieve financial freedom. For a beginner there are so many challenges you face. It's hard to know how to get started. Trading on the Cryptocurrency market has really been a life changer for me. I almost gave up on crypto at some point not until saw a recommendation on Elon musk successfully success story and I got a proficient trader/broker Mr Bernie Doran , he gave me all the information required to succeed in trading. I made more profit than I could ever imagine. I'm not here to converse much but to share my testimony; I have made total returns of 3.6BTC from an investment of just 0.6BTC. Thanks to Mr Bernie I'm really grateful,I have been able to make a great returns trading with his signals and strategies .I urge anyone interested in
INVESTMENT to take bold step in investing in the Cryptocurrency Market, you can reach him on WhatsApp : +1(424) 285-0682 or his Gmail : BERNIEDORANSIGNALS@GMAIL.COM, bitcoin is taking over the world, tell him I referred you🇻🇬🇧🇦🇧🇯🇧🇧🇦🇿🇦🇲🇦🇮