Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

So, Nobel Prize winning, liberal economist Paul Krugman agrees with Cliff Varnell about Comey's October investigation, but adds a Putin twist:

"As evidence accumulates that Trump benefited from a lot of late deciders breaking his way, the case that it was Comey gets stronger 1/"

"So it looks more and more as if we had an election swung, in effect, by a faction of our own security sector in alliance with Putin 2/"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So, Nobel Prize winning, liberal economist Paul Krugman agrees with Cliff Varnell about Comey's October investigation, but adds a Putin twist:

"As evidence accumulates that Trump benefited from a lot of late deciders breaking his way, the case that it was Comey gets stronger 1/"

"So it looks more and more as if we had an election swung, in effect, by a faction of our own security sector in alliance with Putin 2/"

 

 

Thank you Sandy.

And I'm gonna say this over and over.

Sandy, thank you for your patriotism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little thread defense here, let's get back on the JFK tip in this comparison of the Coup of '63 and the Coup of '16.

We approach the JFK assassination like any other murder -- a blank tackboard and a rigorous inspection of the physical evidence.

When we catch a high level lie then we put that individual on the tackboard as a Person of Interest, someone worthy of further investigation.

Jack Valenti – in “A Very Human President” (1973, p3)

(quote on)

Shortly before 7:00 P.M., I escorted Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Ambassador Averell Harriman into the office. I fidgeted outside, in the middle of what would have appeared to be an objective onlooker to be a mélange of confusion. No one of the Johnson aides, Marie Fehmer, his secretary; the late Cliff Carter, his chief political agent; Bill Moyers, nor any of the rest, was quite certain of what lay ahead. We were all busy on the phone and trying to assemble what measure of office discipline we could construct.

(quote off)

LBJ's staff was in a state of confusion -- but that didn't last long after this meeting.

The Assassination Tapes, Max Holland, p57:

<quote on>

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

<quote off>

If what Max Holland wrote about Harriman telling LBJ that all the top US gov't Kremlinologists agreed that the Soviets had nothing to do with the assassination is accurate, then Harriman lied.  The top 3 Soviet experts were George Kennan, Charles Bohlen and Harriman himself;

According to his biography, George Kennan spent 11/22/63 quietly with Robert Openheimer up in Princeton.

According to his biographer, Charles Bohlen was traveling in France.

Proven prevaricator Harriman goes on the tackboard.

Any other high level prevaricators?

The President Has Been Shot. Charles Roberts  (p. 141) A reporter for Newsweek Roberts was on AFI and met McGeorge Bundy at Andrews.
<quote on>
"I remember looking at (McGeorge) Bundy because I was wondering if he had any word of what had happened in the world while we were in transit, whether this assassination was part of a plot. And he told me later that what he reported to the president during that flight back was that the whole world was stunned, but there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all."  <quote off>

Bundy clearly failed to tell the truth about there being no evidence of a conspiracy.

How could he possibly know that 2 or 3 hours after the crime?

Put McGeorge Bundy on the tackboard.

Not as a theory, but as a matter of historical record.

(Giving Charles Roberts the benefit of the doubt, natch.)

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Flesh out my case for Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrest James Comey.

Lock him up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Arrest James Comey.

Lock him up!

Here's the rub, Cliff:

Alleged crimes against the Hatch Act are investigated by an advisory panel, and the panel reports its findings to the president. The president then decides if the charge against the person warrants disciplinary action, which includes removal from office. There is no jail time. At least that's the way I understand it.

At the pace that things get done in Washington, who would be the president deciding Comey's fate? President Trump. Does anybody think Trump would agree with the panel's findings, unless he is declared not guilty?

Yet another perfected Republican tactic.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Here's the rub, Cliff:

Alleged crimes against the Hatch Act are investigated by an advisory panel, and the panel reports its findings to the president. The president then decides if the charge against the person warrants disciplinary action, which includes removal from office. There is no jail time. At least that's the way I understand it.

At the pace that things get done in Washington, who would be the president deciding Comey's fate? President Trump. Does anybody think Trump would agree with the panel's findings, unless he is declared not guilty?

Yet another perfected Republican tactic.

 

We try him in the court of public opinion.

It's a rigged system, right?

Lock him up!

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Any other high level prevaricators?

Did George H.W. Bush expect anyone to believe him when he said he couldn't remember where he was on 11/22/63? So why was he lying? Was there something incriminating about giving a speech to a Rotary Club (or whatever it was) in Tyler, Texas at the time of the assassination?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Did George H.W. Bush expect anyone to believe him when he said he couldn't remember where he was on 11/22/63? So why was he lying? Was there something incriminating about giving a speech to a Rotary Club (or whatever it was) in Tyler, Texas at the time of the assassination?  

 

Good point, Ron, but it's not enough to get him on the tackboard, I don't think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush also lied when he said it must have been some other George Bush who was briefed by the FBI about the assassination. 

Like many politicians he may have lied a lot ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but his lies regarding 11/22/63 (and being "out of the loop" on Iran/Contra) strike me as more guilty than pathological.

Maybe he doesn't belong on the tackboard, but I would at least send Lt. Columbo to ask him, "Oh, one more thing...."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Bush also lied when he said it must have been some other George Bush who was briefed by the FBI about the assassination. 

Like many politicians he may have lied a lot ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but his lies regarding 11/22/63 (and being "out of the loop" on Iran/Contra) strike me as more guilty than pathological.

Maybe he doesn't belong on the tackboard, but I would at least send Lt. Columbo to ask him, "Oh, one more thing...."

 

Come to think of it GHW Bush shares one thing in common with the two guys already on the tackboard: all three are Skull & Bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget the attempted assassination of Reagan. Who would be the obvious beneficiary?

Why, a CIA-connected family friend of the Hinckleys who knew about that disturbed boy John.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

And don't forget the attempted assassination of Reagan. Who would be the obvious beneficiary?

Why, a CIA-connected family friend of the Hinckleys who knew about that disturbed boy John.

 

 

 

 

The same guy who made a fortune off a company that never showed much of a profit -- Zapata Offshore.

Those mobile oil drilling rigs out in the Caribbean would have been perfect for smuggling contraband into the mainland, had Bush been so inclined.

No customs checks on resupply boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My sense of Trump's new appointees is that Trump is quickly carrying out his own "cultural purge."

Get rid of the liberals, the thinkers, the more open, tolerant and all classes of society concerned types and replace them with the more authoritarian hard liner types.

And I thought George W. was bad?

When Trump finishes with the Supreme Court, I think we can honestly say that Eisenhour's M.I.C. warning has finally come into full bloom. 

Dear God!  How did the American people actually allow themselves to elect this guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe - agree.

as for George Bush his name should be on the chalkboard, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...