Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Ron, of course anything from this guy is mostly unworthy of reading. However, he was involved with the highest rungs of New York City organized crime for many years and in this capacity knew some things about Mafia dealings with other famous persons in that higher strata world including Donald Trump. In the 1997 nationally televised interview with Diane Sawyer Gravano mentions Trump and how even Trump couldn't get a hotel built in NYC without going through Gravano's organization, which suggest Trump doing so because he did build during Gravano's construction control tenure. Trump once stated in a later Dave Letterman talk show appearance that he did encounter Mafia figures in his business dealings and that "some of them are very nice people." !!! I do believe Gravano's recollection of being interviewed in Quantico by FBI agents and their asking him about the JFK assassination. What's intriguing to me about this story is why the FBI would still be asking questions about the JFK assassination 40 years after it's occurrence and with someone like Gravano.
  3. Agreed, Bart. At no time, IMo is Prayerman's arm in sunlight. Lovelady obviously moved eastwards towards the center of the entrance in order to get a better view of the motorcade moving own the ramp. PM's light coloured arm is probably caused by borrowed light.
  4. Ron, For me, the WC testimony of Nancy Perrin Rich is a metaphor of what happened. Some of the details vary, but all the basic elements are there. You've got Cubans and Colonels and the mob, and spooky guys sitting in the corner not saying much. It's all in there. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rich_n.htm 🙂 In the end, the Colonel was in charge. Mr. HUBERT. All right. Tell us what happened. Mrs. RICH. Well, we got there and at that time there was the colonel and another middle-aged woman, kind of a real old granite face I would describe her, steel-gray hair. Looked rather mannish. Mr. HUBERT. Who else was there? Mrs. RICH. The colonel, the woman, and the prizefighter type, a couple of other men that just kind of sat off in the corner. Mrs. RICH. "The colonel seemed to be the head of it and seemed to do all the talking. Mr. HUBERT. Did he tell you whom he was representing in the matter? Mrs. RICH. Not exactly. That fact never did come clear to me. A group of people. Steve Thomas
  5. Jim, The Elsbeth address could have come in one of two different ways: 1) is through the FBI. Hosty told the WC that he had known of the Elsbeth St. address as far back as March of 1963. LHO , was brought back to police headquarters around 2:00 PM or so, and even though Hosty didn't get there until 3:00 or so, Bookhout was already there and could have called back to the office to see if the FBI had anything on this Oswald guy. 2) The other way the police could have gotten the Elsbeth address was via the Lumpkin to Crichton to George Bouhe pipeline. Bouhe had Oswald's Elsbeth address as far back as November, 1962, and we know that Crichton had an inside line on info to the White Russian community because of his call to Mamamtov looking for an interpreter. Revill wrote a memo to Gannaway about Oswald around 3:00 or 3:15 PM and used the Elsbeth St. address, so we know they had it as early as that, but I don't know that the police got it via Roy Truly. Steve Thomas
  6. Part 4: Sy Hersh meets Lex Cusack As everyone knows by now, the whole Monroe angle blew up in Hersh's face. When Hersh had to reluctantly admit on ABC that he had been had, he did it on the same spot where Rivers, Summers, and Sylvia Chase had played martyrs for the tabloid cause, namely 20/20. On September 25th, Peter Jennings narrated the opening segment of that program. With what we know in November, Jennings approach reveals much by what was left out. Hersh appeared only briefly on the segment. He was on screen less than 10% of the time. The main focus was on the forensic debunking of the documents (which we now know was underplayed by ABC.) Jennings cornered Lex Cusack, the man who "found" the papers in the files of his late father who was an attorney. From published accounts, the documents were supposedly signed by five people: JFK, RFK, Monroe, Janet DesRosiers (Joe Kennedy's assistant) and Aaron Frosch (Monroe's lawyer). They outline a settlement agreement between JFK and Monroe signed at the Carlyle Hotel in New York on March 3, 1960. The documents set up a $600,000 trust to be paid by contributions from the individual Kennedy family members to Monroe's mother, Gladys Baker. In return for this, Monroe agrees to keep quiet about her relationship with JFK and any underworld personalities she observed in Kennedy's presence. The latter is specified as being Sam Giancana. Kennedy had a lawyer out of his usual orbit, Larry Cusack of New York, do the preparation. Just from the above, one could see there were certain problems with the story. First, its details could have been culled from reading the pulp fiction in the Monroe field: the idea that JFK had a long, ongoing affair with Monroe; that she had threatened to go public with it; that the Kennedys were in league with Giancana; that the family would put up money to save JFK's career etc. All this could have been rendered from reading, say two books: Slatzer's and Thomas Reeves'. Even the touch about the Carlyle Hotel–Kennedy's New York apartment–is in the Reeves book. In other words, it is all too stale and pat, with none of the twists or turns that happen in real life. Secondly, are we to truly believe that the Kennedys would put their name to a document so that a woman blackmailing them would have even more power to blackmail them in the future? Or was that to lead into why the Kennedys had her killed? Hersh has leapt so enthusiastically into the "trash Kennedy" abyss that these questions never seem to have bothered him. Anson depicts him as waving the documents over his head at a restaurant and shouting, "The Kennedys were...the worst people!" Lex Cusack showed them to Hersh a few at a time, wetting his appetite for more at each instance. Hersh then used the documents to get Little, Brown to give him $250,000 more and to sell ABC on a documentary. Jennings said on the 20/20 segment that the flaw in the documents was in the typing part of them and not the actually penmanship. As subsequent facts have shown, this is not actually true. Linda Hart, one of the handwriting analysts hired by ABC (who was slighted on the program) later said that there were indications of "pen drops" in John Kennedy's signature, i.e. someone stopped writing and then started up again, a sure indication of tracing. Also, when I talked to Greg Schreiner, president of a Monroe fan club in Los Angeles, he told me that the moment he saw Monroe's signature, he knew it was not hers. Interestingly, he had met with Hersh this summer. Hersh had told him about the documents and Greg asked to see them. Hersh refused. Another interesting aspect of the exposure of Hersh's "bombshell" was aired in the New York Times on September 27th. In this story, Bill Carter disclosed that there were doubts expressed about the documents by NBC to Hersh many months ago. Warren Littlefield, an NBC executive, said that Hersh had tried to peddle a documentary to them based on the documents. After NBC sent their experts to look at them in the summer of 1996, he told Hersh that in their opinion the documents were questionable. He said that NBC's lawyers were more specific with Hersh's lawyers. This was backed up by David Samuels' article in The New Yorker of 11/3/97. So Hersh's denials on this point, mentioned by Carter, ring hollow. What makes the hollowness more palpable is one of the typing inconsistencies in the documents. On the Jennings segment, former FBI expert Jerry Richards showed one of the most blatant errors in the concoction. The typist had made a misspelling and had gone back to erase it. But the erasure was done with a lift-off ribbon which was not available in 1960 and was not sold until the seventies. This erasure is so clear it even shows up in photos in the Samuels article. Hersh has been a reporter since the early sixties. For at least two decades (before computers came in), he made his living with a typewriter. Yet, in all the hours he spent looking at these papers, this anachronism never jumped out at him? That Hersh could be such an easy mark, that he was so eager to buy into the Summers-Haspiel-Slatzer concoction tells us a lot about what to expect from his book. As Anson notes, Hersh has been talking not only to CIA officials, but also to Secret Service people and, especially to Judith Exner. The reasons for the CIA to lie about the Castro plots have already been explained. At the beginning of part one of this piece, I mentioned that many in the Secret Service hated Kennedy, realized they were culpable in a security breakdown, and, like Elmer Moore, worked hard to cover up the true circumstances of Kennedy's murder. About Exner's motives, I can only speculate. Will Hersh have her now say that she saw Marilyn with Kennedy and Giancana in Hyannis Port on a sail boat eating pizza? From Anson's description of panting-dog Hersh, delivering Exner to him was a little like giving Geraldo copy of Goddess.
  7. Part 3 Swallowing Slatzer The worst thing about Mailer's money-grubbing antics was that it gave an alley to run through to a man who had actually been at work before Mailer's book was published. In 1972, Robert Slatzer approached a writer named Will Fowler. Slatzer had been at work on an article which posited a conspiracy to murder Monroe. Fowler read it and was unimpressed. He told Slatzer that had he been married to Monroe, now that would make a real story. Shortly after, Slatzer got in contact with Fowler again. He said he forgot to tell him, but he had been married to Monroe. The "marriage" was a short one: 72 hours. It happened in Mexico on October 4, 1952. Unfortunately for Slatzer, Spoto found out that Monroe was in Beverly Hills that day on a shopping spree and she signed a check dated October 4th to pay for the articles she purchased (Spoto p. 227). Since Slatzer says that the pair left for Mexico on October 3rd and stayed for the following weekend, this demolishes his story. But despite his fabrications, in 1974 Slatzer turned his article into a book entitled The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe. It went through at least three printings, including a mass paperback sale. Besides his "marriage" and his "continuing friendship" with Monroe, the other distinguishing aspect of the book is its similarity to Capell's work. The first line is: "Bobby Kennedy promised to marry me. What do you think of that?" Slatzer, as if reading the Hoover/Angleton memo, saw her "diary." One of the things in it is a mention of "Murder, Incorporated." When Slatzer asks his "ex-wife" what that meant, Marilyn replies on cue: "I didn't quite understand what Bobby was saying. But I remember him telling me that he was powerful enough to have people taken care of it they got in his way." Another entry is about the Bay of Pigs. Slatzer says that Marilyn told him that Jack let Bobby handle "the whole thing" because JFK's back was sore that day etc. etc. etc. The whole book is a continuation and refinement of the Capell hoax. But Slatzer got away with it. Today he still appears on talk shows and videos (e.g. Marilyn, the Last Word ) as Marilyn's former spouse. In 1991, he actually sold his story to the ever gullible ABC. They made a film of his tall tale: Marilyn and Me. Slatzer's book set a precedent in this field. Later, volumes by the likes of Milo Speriglio (whom Slatzer hired as an investigator), Anthony Scaduto, and James Haspiel, took their lead from Slatzer. They all follow the above outlined formula: the Kennedys were a rotten crowd (Collier and Horowitz); they were involved in political assassinations (John Davis); and both were having affairs with Monroe (Slatzer). Tony, How Could You? In the Monroe/Kennedys industry, 1985 was a pivotal year. Anthony Summers dove into the quagmire–head first. He published his Marilyn biography, Goddess. In it, he reveals (shockingly) that he bought into Slatzer. Slatzer is profusely mentioned in both the index and his footnotes. So are people like Haspiel and Jeane Carmen. Carmen is another late-surfacing intimate of Monroe. Carmen professes to have been Monroe's roomie when she lived on Doheny Drive, before she bought her famous home in Brentwood. She began circulating her story after Slatzer did his bit. Of course, Marilyn's neighbors at Doheny, and her other friends, don't recall her (Spoto p. 472). But Summers welcomes her because she provides sexy details about Marilyn's torrid romance with Bobby. A third peg in Summers' edifice is Ralph de Toledano. Summers describes him as a "Kennedy critic" in the paperback version of his book (p. 453). This is like saying that Richard Helms once did some work for the CIA. De Toledano was a former OSS officer who Bill Donovan got rid of because he was too much of a rabid anticommunist. After the war, he hooked up with professional Red baiter Isaac Don Levine of the publication Plain Talk. Levine was another spooky journalist whom Allen Dulles, while he was on the Warren Commission, considered using to write incriminating articles about Oswald (Peter Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK p. 55). Later on, de Toledano found a home at former CIA officer and E. Howard Hunt pal Bill Buckley's National Review. If one were to translate the Summers trio of Slatzer, Carmen, and de Toledano to the JFK case, one could say that he wedded Ricky White to Beverly Oliver and then brought in a journalist like, say Hugh Aynesworth, to cinch his case. And the things Summers leaves out are as important as what he puts in. For instance, he omits the facts that her psychiatrist did not know the drugs that her internist was prescribing; the weird nature and background of her house servant Eunice Murray; and her pending reconciliation with Joe DiMaggio which, of course, makes her "torrid romance" with Bobby even more incredible. The reconciliation makes less credible Summers' portrait of an extremely neurotic Monroe, which he needs in order to float the possibility that she was going to "broadcast" her relationship with the Kennedys. Summers' book attracted the attention of Geraldo Rivera at ABC's 20/20. Rivera and his cohort Sylvia Chase bought into Goddess about as willingly as Summers bought Slatzer. They began filing a segment for the news magazine. But as the segment began to go through the editors, objections and reservations were expressed. Finally, Roone Arledge, head of the division at the time, vetoed it by saying it was, "A sleazy piece of journalism" and "gossip-column stuff" (Summers p. 422). Liz Smith, queen of those gossip-columnists, pilloried ABC for censoring the "truth about 1962." Rivera either quit or was shoved out by ABC over the controversy. Arledge was accused by Chase of "protecting the Kennedys" (he was a distant relative through marriage). Rivera showed his true colors by going on to produce syndicated specials on Satanism and Al Capone's vaults (which were empty). He is now famous for bringing tabloidism to television. Arledge won the battle. Rivera and Liz Smith won the war. Until 1993. The Truth About Marilyn In 1993, Donald Spoto wrote his bio of Monroe. After reading the likes of Haspiel, Slatzer and Summers, picking up Spoto is like going back into one's home after it has been fumigated. Spoto is a very experienced biographer who is not shy about controversy. His biographies of Alfred Hitchcock and Laurence Olivier reveal sides of their personalities that they, and other writers, tried to conceal. Spoto is also quite thorough in obtaining and then pouring over primary sources. Finally, he respects himself and his subject, which allows him to question sources before arriving at a judgment on someone's credibility. This last quality allowed him to arrive at what is the most satisfactory conclusion about the death of Monroe (Spoto pp. 566-593). The Kennedys had nothing to do with it. I have no great interest or admiration for Monroe as an actress or a personality. But I do appreciate good research, fine writing, and a clear dedication to truth. If any reader is interested in the real facts of her life, this is the book to read.
  8. Part 2: This is as specific as Capell gets in outlining his reason for the "conspiracy." I wondered where he got the idea of Monroe's "going public" about an affair. As many writers have pointed out, this would have been quite out of character for her. Something that Jim Marrs recently sent me may help explain it. He sent me the full text of a memo that he references in his current book, Alien Agenda. The memo supposedly reports on information gleaned from an FBI wiretap of Dorothy Kilgallen's phone. The document went from the FBI to the CIA, where it was signed by James Angleton. In it, a man named Howard Rothberg is quoted as saying that Monroe had conversations with the Kennedy brothers on top secret matters like the examination of captured outer space creatures, bases inside of Cuba, and of President Kennedy's plans to kill Castro. He also said that she was talking about a "diary of secrets" (quotes in original) that she had threatened RFK with if he brushed her off. When I got this memo, I was struck by its singular format. I have seen hundreds of CIA documents, maybe thousands, and I never saw one that looked like this. (We can't reproduce it because the copy sent to us is so poor). I forwarded it to Washington researcher Peter Vea. He agreed it was highly unusual. To play it safe, I then sent a copy to former intelligence analyst John Newman. He said that he had seen such reports. What he thought was wrong with it was that there were things in it that should have been redacted that weren't and things exposed that should have been blacked out. For instance, there is a phrase as follows, "a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting [things] from outer space." Newman notes that the brackets around the word "things" denote that it had been previously redacted. It should not have. The words "outer space" should have been redacted and they never were. On the basis of this and other inconsistencies, he decided it was a "good" forgery from someone who knew what they were doing. He told PBS this four years ago when they showed it to him. The fact that this document purportedly revealing sensitive information was exposed in 1993 when he saw it, before the JFK Act when into effect, justifies even more suspicion about its origin and intent. Spoto's book adds more to the suspicion about the document, and perhaps the information in Capell's pamphlet. Spoto notes that on August 3, 1962, the day the above memo was distributed, Kilgallen printed an item in her column saying that Marilyn was "vastly alluring to a handsome gentleman who is a bigger name than Joe DiMaggio" (p. 600). Spoto notes the source for Kilgallen's story as Howard Rothberg, the man named in the memo. This is interesting for more than one reason. First, Spoto writes that Rothberg was "a New York interior designer with no connection at all to Marilyn or her circle." (Ibid.) This means that he was likely getting his "information" through a third, unnamed source. Second, Rothberg's name, and this is part of the sensitive information referred to above, is exposed in the document. This is extraordinary. Anyone who has jousted with the FBI or CIA knows how difficult it is to get "sources and methods" revealed. In fact this is one of the big battles the ARRB had to fight with the FBI. Yet in this document, both the method and the source are open. Third, to my knowledge, Kilgallen never printed anything specific from the document. Why? Assuming for a moment that the document is real, probably because she could not confirm anything in it. But interestingly, right after Kilgallen printed her vague allusion, Winchell began his steady drumbeat of rumors until, as Spoto notes, he essentially printed Capell's whole tale (p. 601). From this, one could conclude that the Angleton memo could be viewed in two ways. Either it was, as in Newman believes, a "good" fake, or a false lead planted to begin an orchestrated campaign. More specifically, Rothberg was either a witting or unwitting conduit to the media for either Hoover or Angleton (or both). The quick Winchell follow-up would argue for Hoover. The Director would want someone else to lead the story before his man Winchell pushed it to the limit. The "diary of secrets," so reminiscent of Mary Meyer (discussed in Part One of this article) would suggest Angleton. Capell was drawn up on charges in 1965. The charges were rather fatal to the tale told in his RFK pamphlet: conspiracy to commit libel. One would have thought this discreditation was enough to impale the tale. And it probably would have been had it not been for Norman Mailer. In 1973, Mailer published a book, Marilyn, (really a photo essay) with the assistance of longtime FBI asset on the Kennedy assassination Larry Schiller. He recirculated the tale again, inserting a new twist. He added the possibility that the FBI and/or the CIA might have been involved in the murder in order to blackmail Bobby ( p. 242). In 1973, pre-Rupert Murdoch, the media had some standards. Mailer was excoriated for his baseless ruminations. In private, he admitted he did what he did to help pay off a tax debt. He also made a similar confession in public. When Mike Wallace asked him on 60 Minutes (7/13/73) why he had to trash Bobby Kennedy, Mailer replied "I needed money very badly."
  9. Sammy Garavano and Miro Speriglio? Why not the nutty Jeane Carmen who says ROseill shot Marilyn? Part 1 of my essay In the Collier-Horowitz book, the authors allude to the pamphlet that started the industry. Describing Bobby's 1964 campaign for a Senate seat in New York, they write: Meanwhile, right-wingers were circulating a pamphlet entitled "The Strange Death of Marilyn Monroe," charging that Bobby had been having an affair with the film actress and, when she threatened to expose some of his dealings in appeasing the Castro regime, had her killed by Communist agents under his control. (p. 409) The authors fail to note the man who penned this work. His name was Frank Capell. Capell is usually described as an extreme right-winger associated with the John Birch Society. This is apt, but incomplete. As Jim Garrison once noted, the more one scratches at these Minutemen types, the more their intelligence connections appear. Swallowing Frank Capell Capell had worked for the government in World War II, but was convicted on charges of eliciting kickbacks from contractors for the war effort. After the war, in the Red Scare era, Capell began publishing a Red baiting newsletter, The Herald of Freedom. He was highly active in attempting to expose leftists in the entertainment industry. It was this experience that put him in a good position to pen his McCarthyite, murderous smear of Bobby Kennedy. But there is another element that needs to be noted about Capell: his ties to the FBI. As Lisa Pease noted in her watershed article on Thomas Dodd (Probe Vol. 3#6), Capell was one of the sources tapped by the Bureau in the wake of the assassination in order to find out who Oswald really was. His information proved remarkably penetrating, considering it came in February of 1964. Capell said Oswald was a CIA agent. Even more interesting, Capell stated in his FBI interview that this information came from "a friend of his...with sources close to the presidential commission" i. e., the Warren Commission. To have this kind of acute information and to have access to people around the Commission (which was sealed off at the time) strongly indicates Capell was tied into the intelligence community, which of course, is probably why the Bureau was consulting him in the first place. This is revelatory of not just the past, i.e. the origins of this myth, but of the present, i.e. why it persists. For as Donald Spoto reveals in his book Marilyn Monroe, one of the people who relentlessly pushed Capell's fabricated smear was fellow FBI asset, Hoover crony, and Hollywood Red baiter Walter Winchell (Spoto p. 601). (For a full discussion of former ONI operative Winchell's service in Hoover's employ see Neal Gabler's Winchell.) As William Sullivan has noted, the dissemination of Capell's invention was encouraged by Hoover. Sullivan called Bobby a near-Puritan and then added: The stories about Bobby Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were just stories. The original story was invented by a so-called journalist, a right-wing zealot who had a history of spinning wild yarns. It spread like wildfire, of course, and J. Edgar Hoover was right there, gleefully fanning the flames. (The Bureau p. 56) The Capell/Winchell/Hoover triangle sowed the seeds of this slander. But the exposure of this triangle does more. In the Vanity Fair article in which Judith Exner dumped out the latest installment of her continuing saga, Liz Smith revealed that she apprenticed at the feet of Walter Winchell in New York (January 1997 p. 32). This may explain why she took up her mentor's cudgel. Capell's work is, as Spoto notes in his Afterword, a frightful piece of reactionary paranoia. But there are two details in his pat anti-Kennedy tract that merit mention. First, Capell is probably the first to propagate the idea that RFK was indirectly responsible for his brother's murder. He does this by saying (p. 52), that commie sympathizer Bobby called off the investigation of the shooting of General Edwin Walker in April of 1963, thus allowing that crazed Communist Oswald to escape and later kill JFK. This piece of rant has been modified later to fit into the stilted mosaics of people like Davis and Waldron. What makes it so fascinating is that, through the FBI's own files, we now have evidence that Capell was deliberately creating a fiction: he had information that Oswald was not a communist, but a CIA agent. The second point worth examining about Capell's screed is the part where he begins laying out the "conspiracy" to kill Marilyn, specifically, RFK's motive for murder. Capell writes: But what if she were helped along into the next world by someone who would either benefit financially or who feared she might disclose something he wished to conceal. Suppose, for example, a married man were involved, that he had promised to marry her but was not sincere. Suppose she had threatened to expose their relationship (p. 28)
  10. I can't get the audio on this video to work. Noguchi was also the coroner for RFK as most know. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=marilyn+monroe+autopsy&view=detail&mid=C6CDB073AF0E58069496C6CDB073AF0E58069496&FORM=VIRE
  11. At least we agree that ending a proxy war is “probably” a good thing. I would have used the word “unequivocally” or “always”, but at least I can now see where you’re coming from.
  12. Robert, I know more about how Putin and the FSB operate than you imagine. I've had some direct experience with them during the past 20 years. In fact I'm a Russophile,(though not a Soviet-o-phile) a member of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR) for the past quarter century. Surely, you jest in referring to Trump "punching Putin in the face" (metaphorically or otherwise.) Putin owns Trump, and the world knows it (other than the delusional 30 percent-- Fox News-watching crowd -- in the U.S.) Trump made an international laughing stock of himself in Helsinki by denying that Putin meddled in our U.S. elections. He's, obviously, terrified of Putin-- one of the few politicians in the world (besides Kim Jung Un) he hasn't dared disparage. Policy-wise, Trump has functioned as Putin's king pawn on the world stage since 2015-- fracturing and weakening U.S. society and our alliances with Western Europe, and ending our Timber Sycamore proxy war in Syria (probably a good thing there, considering the damage we have done in Syria.) Trump has also repeatedly undermined the Ukraine in their struggle to prevent occupation and annexation by the Kremlin. Putin has used Trump brilliantly to help implement Alexander Dugin's 1997 geopolitical strategy for advancing Russian Federation hegemony in Eurasia.
  13. Not funny. Why didn't the Warren Omission know about this, investigate it? They weren't an investigative body. They were dependent on Hoover and his FBI to voluntarily provide this and much more, but didn't. In Fact suppressed information.
  14. This is the intro to US District Judge Marrero's ruling on Trump's tax returns and what they claim to be the President's immunity to everything under the sun. Trump lost that case and is now going to appeal the decision tomorrow before an Appellate Court. Here's the King's position according to Marrero: The President asserts an extraordinary claim in the dispute now before this Court. He contends that, in his view of the President's duties and functions and the allocation of governmental powers between the executive and the judicial branches under the United States Constitution, the person who serves as President, while in office, enjoys absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind. Consider the reach of the President's argument. As the Court reads it, presidential immunity would stretch to cover every phase of criminal proceedings, including investigations, grand jury proceedings and subpoenas, indictment, prosecution, arrest, trial, conviction, and incarceration. That constitutional protection presumably would encompass any conduct, at any time, in any forum, whether federal or state, and whether the President acted alone or in concert with other individuals. Hence, according to this categorical doctrine as presented in this proceeding, the constitutional dimensions of the presidential shield from judicial process are virtually limitless: Until the President leaves office by expiration of his term, resignation, or removal through impeachment and conviction, his exemption from criminal proceedings would extend not only to matters arising from performance of the President's duties and functions in his official capacity, but also to ones arising from his private affairs, financial transactions, and all other conduct undertaken as an ordinary citizen, both during and before his tenure in office. Moreover, on this theory, the President's special dispensation from the criminal law's purview and judicial inquiry would embrace not only the behavior and activities of the President himself, but also extend derivatively so as to potentially immunize the misconduct of any other person, business affiliate, associate, or relative who may have collaborated with the President in purportedly unlawful acts and whose offenses ordinarily would warrant criminal investigation and prosecution of all involved. In practice, the implications and actual effects of the President's categorical rule could be far reaching. In some circumstances, by raising his protective shield, applicable statutes of limitations could run, barring further investigation and prosecution of serious criminal offenses, thus potentially enabling both the President and any accomplices to escape being brought to justice. Temporally, such immunity would operate to frustrate the administration of justice by insulating from criminal law scrutiny and judicial review, whether by federal or state courts, not only matters occurring during the President's tenure in office, but potentially also records relating to transactions and illegal actions the President and others may have committed before he assumed the Presidency. This ruling could kill the useless DOJ memos as well. It will be interesting to see. CSPAN 7ET
  15. For me, even the possibility of Kennedy involvement in Marilyn Monroe's death is one of the few areas of disenchantment I ever felt with them and to a stomach wrenching degree. I want to think they would never engage in something so heinously vile and wrong. Just for off-the-wall, but consider the source sake, I recently viewed this video interview of former N.Y. Mafia hit man Sammy "The Bull " Gravano by Patrick Bet-David. At the 2 hour 14 minute mark Bet-David asks Gravano what he knew or knows about the JFK assassination. Gravano first says he doesn't know. He then states that he was taken to Quantico, Virginia where big shot FBI or some other agency people asked him about the JFK assassination and mob involvement. Gravano says he told them it wasn't his guys up on the grassy knoll. Gravano then says he told these questioners ... it was your people, whereupon Gravano then says at that statement the agents threw up their hands and ended the meeting and walked out! NY Mafia hit man Sammy Gravano was actually taken to Quantico to be asked JFK assassination questions? Really. Why? Gravano then goes on to say that both JFK and his father were friendly with and worked with the mob! That Bobby Kennedy was the only Kennedy who would not work with them and was trying to confront them. Don't waste time with most of the interview. This guy Gravano still defends his murder of 19 others as simply loyalty to the oaths of Le Costra Nostra. So, skip right to the 2:14 minute mark to hear Gravano's Kennedy statements. 2:23:38NOW PLAYING WATCH LATER Sammy The Bull Breaks Silence After 20 Years Valuetainment 1.5M views4 days ago Salvatore "Sammy The Bull" Gravano breaks silence after 20 years in this exclusive sit down with Patrick Bet-David. Subscribe ...
  16. Mr. Truly No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
  17. Don't get me wrong. Putin has had some very serious gripes with the USA. Back in 2009, Hillary gave Putin the shaft when she cancelled the sale of Opel (GM's European) to a Russian led group. Not only did a number of Oligarchs friendly to Putin lose a lot of money down the Clinton Foundation Pay to Play Donation Drain, Putin did not get the chance to show off to his own people that he could bring them the first Western style modern car manufacturing plant. Putin had a gripe with Hillary. It was personal. I do think he prefers Trump. I think, like anyone else, Putin prefers to be metaphorically punched in the face by Trump then be stabbed in the back by Hillary. There is a much, much, darker reason for Russian resentment of Hillary and what she represents, than just the loss of a car factory. We'll just add it has something to do with the Magnitsky Act, and the Russian law enacted shortly thereafter. The Dima Yakovlev Law. Pay special attention to the restrictions placed on the adoption of Russian Children. Then consider the possible reason this adoption agency in Strongsville Ohio was raided by the FBI and what that might have to do with a Visa lawyer named Lisa Page (and Strzok "girlfriend") who used to live in Strongsville.
  18. Here is a photo shop with the vanishing point perspective removed. It simulates a view that is looking straight at the TSBD's front face, as if the camera lens was perpendicular to the front of the building. You still can't see straight into the recess of the doorway but the lines of the front of the building are squared off.
  19. I should re read this whole thread before asking this. I tried to follow it early on then sporadically. It is deep with unfamiliar territory and names for me. Enlightening but I still feel lost. Lets blame Paul (B). He kept pounding, hammering on other threads about Military Intelligence in Dallas regarding the assassination. Then Steve Thomas has that thing for the Colonels that I get lost in. Top it off with recent reading about John Newman questioning the bonafide's of Antonio Veciana regarding the CIA, suggesting he was more so Army Intelligence. It all makes me wonder. Was the assassination itself a military operation? I admit to confusion, many questions. I don't want to detract from or derail the thread. But, did maybe the CIA set it up, provide cover and the patsy, but maybe the actual snipers were part of practiced trained military teams? Military intelligence seems obviously involved regarding the parade route and in Dealy Plaza (photographers, where are all of their pictures?). So many of us have become convinced over the years it was a CIA operation with they're own snipers, Cuban's, Corsicans, mob or otherwise. Was that all smoke to obscure, like Veciana ID'ing Oswald with Phillips, blaming it all on the CIA ultimately (while the were involved, complicit?). Bill and Larry's thoughts in particular would be appreciated. There's not much proof of anything. Does it sound logical?
  20. I see a country with an Economy smaller than South Korea, three US States, and only marginally larger than Spain’s. As someone once said about the USSR, the place is Upper Volta, with Rockets. They are the perfect villain, they have a reputation for evil, and they can’t fight back. The Chinese though, they’re the real deal. They steal commercial secrets, work to advance mercantile interests wherever European abandonment creates a power vacuum (Africa) and shoots rubber bullets at journalists and lead ones at their countrymen (Hong Kong.) Russia is no longer a threat, if they ever were. They are Upper Volta with rockets. Or rather, Burkina Faso with rockets these days.
  21. There are a couple of sync points for Bell/Wiegman. I used Charles Hester and his entry into the colonnade shadow as my sync point. I lightened him as he appears in the background (just behind the foreground lamp post). The other sync point is Beatrice moving her left hand/arm off the ground and backwards, if one desires to use this as a sync. Difference from the Charles sync to the Beatrice sync = 7 Bell to 11 Wiegman frames The Charles sync span equals 32 Bell frames = 32/15.6 = 2.05 sec.
  22. Dennis, Is this supposed to constitute a rebuttal of the many facts about Trump, Russia, Alexander Dugin, and the Gerasimov Doctrine that I posted above? How utterly ridiculous. To whom are you appealing with this kind of glib rhetorical nonsense? It's the kind of intellectual dishonesty that serves no useful purpose in a serious discussion of history and politics.
  23. Mark, Thanks for the link. Some of the information in that PDF comes from his 1996 study. His study listed a total of 29 frames in reference to the previous span described. The copy I have is also of poor quality, but good enough to pull out the first 23 frames, followed by the rest, after that sync.
  24. Yesterday
  25. Newman is correct. The more one looks at Trained to Kill, the more you realize it is virtually a fictional account. For starters, you have two accounts of the alleged meeting between Veciana and Bishop in Havana-the original 1960 account and the newly minted 1959 account. Both are now shown by Newman to be false and could not occurred as stated. The new 1959 account is extremely laugh worthy with all of its James Bond-like claims. Veciana also takes credit for the Pedro Pan exodus which thee is no evidence that he did anything to cause. That was possibly orchestrated by the CIA (who Veciana was not working for) and the Catholic Church. He also claims that he was responsible for the El Encanto firebombing. In addition to the fact that he has no evidence for this and another individual was convicted, there is the fact that Veciana was an organizer and finance man-not an action man. Even in the 1961 assassination attempt against Castro that he was involved in, Reinol Gonzales described him as the organizer of the plot. Much more material there to work with.
  26. John Newman posted these comments following his original Facebook post: John Newman: But Trained To Kill came out 20 years after Fabian Escalante saw the problem. However, Fabian changed the chronology but not the paradigm. No worries anymore. A hard rain is underway now. We have to completely rethink where the galactic center of this case has been all of this time. And the orchards we are walking in are full of low hanging fruit everywhere we look. John Newman: Army is the answer to all of the questions. Veciana's Trained to Kill, however, tells a completely fictional story..... Doug Campbell replied: The Ghosts Of Army Intelligence ". They're everywhere with this thing. Just out of focus... 1 John Newman And while we're using that metaphor, I would add that Veciana has turned the ghostly Angletonion CIA "willing handmaiden" into the ghastly "Grim Reaper
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...