Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Paul Trejo

Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Roger DeLaria said:

Jason,

As Paul said earlier, good to see you back again. 

If someone with close access wanted to take JFK out quietly and covertly, that could have been easily done. One could also say that the open and public manner of the operation was by design and intended as an example. Does that mean it was by those without close access? Certainly possible as you said. Things to ponder.

Everyone have a safe and happy New Year, and see you in 2018!

Occam's razor.

Those without easy access to the president have to kill the president in a wildly dangerous and unpredictable public way. They have no other choice.

Those with easy access to the president plus control over US intelligence and security apparatus kill the president in the quickest, most efficient, and most certain way possible.  What happened in Dallas was wildly inefficient, sloppy, and uncertain.  

Why take such a huge risk that this might not work? ....only because you have no other choice, no other way to kill the president except the hugely risky way of Dallas. The likes of Hoover and Dulles could have JFK or anyone killed and there would never be any question or controversy ...if they were behind it.

Nice talking with you again.

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger, again a pleasure to talk with you.

After further  thought of what you say above, my additional response is that you might be mixing motive and method. Is there any reason to do so? Most of the time, the method of murder has little to do with the motive.   

Who uses guns to kill?  People who through their circumstances find guns the easiest way to kill.   

Killing with guns is probably the easiest way to kill for most of us, but is it the easiest way to kill for Dulles, Hoover, LBJ and so forth ...considering they control the investigatory processes?

We know how Kennedy was killed. Forget motive entirely for a second .

Concentrate on the method  used to kill him and remember that everyone always chooses  what they believe will have the highest chance of success . So we start with the method of the murder and from there try to figure out who is most likely to use this kind of method. In other words, if you need Kennedy killed, who in what position would think it easiest to kill him in the way that he was actually killed?

Again forget motive. Who in what position would think it is easiest to kill someone as they're driving by in a convertible in front of hundreds of witnesses and dozens of photographers?  If for no other reason than to indulge me, just concentrate only on the method and stop trying to conflate method with motive. Who would choose this method assuming their only objective is to kill Kennedy?

What does the method of the murder tell us about the circumstances of the murderers, ignoring motive entirely.?.?.?

Jason

 

 

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Roger, again a pleasure to talk with you.

After further  thought of what you say above, my additional response is that you might be mixing motive and method. Is there any reason to do so? Most of the time, the method of murder has little to do with the motive.   

Who uses guns to kill?  People who through their circumstances find guns the easiest way to kill.   

Killing with guns is probably the easiest way to kill for most of us, but is it the easiest way to kill for Dulles, Hoover, LBJ and so forth ...considering they control the investigatory processes?

We know how Kennedy was killed. Forget motive entirely for a second .

Concentrate on the method  used to kill him and remember that everyone always chooses  what they believe will have the highest chance of success . So we start with the method of the murder and from there try to figure out who is most likely to use this kind of method. In other words, if you need Kennedy killed, who in what position would think it easiest to kill him in the way that he was actually killed?

Again forget motive. Who in what position would think it is easiest to kill someone as they're driving by in a convertible in front of hundreds of witnesses and dozens of photographers?  If for no other reason than to indulge me, just concentrate only on the method and stop trying to conflate method with motive. Who would choose this method assuming their only objective is to kill Kennedy?

What does the method of the murder tell us about the circumstances of the murderers, ignoring motive entirely.?.?.?

Jason

 

 

Mobsters or Anti Castro Cuban as motivated parties could have been given the green light, cover and protection from the individuals you are trying to exonerate. Your arguments are fallacies. Intel organizations, financial organizations, political parties, crypto cultures or power groups all could have enlisted scrappy individuals, motivated by money, hatred or political interests to kill JFK. 

Your argument would be more fully-exposed as false if you were to attempt to explain how some of these high level individuals, departments or interests would have, in your theory, killed JFK.

You and Trejo are trying to say that the method used, of shots fired at a motorcade in Dealy Plaza, could have only been the work of Dallas Police, Birchers, Walkers henchmen or the like. The argument never gets out of the gate.

The further implication is that your perps could have only killed Kennedy in Dallas, or in that area, and by the means that were actually used. You can't prove that, and the likelihood of that theory is quite remote.

Furthermore, Trejo implicates E Howard Hunt, David Atlee Phillips and David Morales, but says they did it as a hobby, on their free time. How does your present argument allow you and Trejo to wriggle-out of the participation of the high level and wide ranging conspiracy that you are here trying, failingly I might add, to disprove?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul, if for nothing else than to show others that me and you are not entirely of the same mind, I'll begin by saying that I disagree somewhat with your point about Mark Lane and a few of the others you mention.

Mark Lane was a Rebel Without a Cause when he was given the great gift of the Kennedy assassination to latch onto as his cause célèbre. This in no way means that his work is invalid, in fact  his work is probably critical  in both timing  and the direction he took ... but if it wasn't for the JFK assassination he would have concentrated on the Vietnam War or any of the other pet left-wing projects of his day.   In other words, even people who are right pursue their CT for many of the same self-satisfying reasons as those who are wrong.

If you want to kill your wife or your boss, or anyone you see everyday and trusts you with their life, do you arrange for a spectacularly chaotic and mistake-filled circus as she drives by  in a convertible with hundreds of witnesses around and a dozen or more photographers in place? Or do you kill her in a way that is guaranteed to succeed?   ...

Jason

Jason,

Actually, I'm not a big fan of Mark Lane, because he ended up as a CIA-did-it CTer, and I reject the CIA-did-it CT.  My approval for Mark Lane isn't for his ending song, but for his first song.   

When British philosopher Bertrand Russell realized that he himself was too old to pursue the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, he directed all of his British followers to follow Mark Lane.  This was around 1966 (when Russell was 94 years old, still sharp as a tack, though moving slowly).

In those early days, Mark Lane was far more open to the possibility of proving the FBI wrong.  It was only after years of frustration that he decided that the CIA was the real culprit.   

In my reading, Mark Lane peaked around 1990, when he nailed E. Howard Hunt in the JFK Assassination saga (cf. Plausible Denial, 1992).   On his deathbed, E. Howard Hunt confessed to his son about his minor role in the JFK conspiracy.   So, Mark Lane was correct to that degree.   That was a truly historical conviction, a quarter century ago.

HAPPY NEW YEAR! :D
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Roger, again a pleasure to talk with you.

After further  thought of what you say above, my additional response is that you might be mixing motive and method. Is there any reason to do so? Most of the time, the method of murder has little to do with the motive.   

Who uses guns to kill?  People who through their circumstances find guns the easiest way to kill.   

Killing with guns is probably the easiest way to kill for most of us, but is it the easiest way to kill for Dulles, Hoover, LBJ and so forth ...considering they control the investigatory processes?

We know how Kennedy was killed. Forget motive entirely for a second .

Concentrate on the method  used to kill him and remember that everyone always chooses  what they believe will have the highest chance of success . So we start with the method of the murder and from there try to figure out who is most likely to use this kind of method. In other words, if you need Kennedy killed, who in what position would think it easiest to kill him in the way that he was actually killed?

Again forget motive. Who in what position would think it is easiest to kill someone as they're driving by in a convertible in front of hundreds of witnesses and dozens of photographers?  If for no other reason than to indulge me, just concentrate only on the method and stop trying to conflate method with motive. Who would choose this method assuming their only objective is to kill Kennedy?

What does the method of the murder tell us about the circumstances of the murderers, ignoring motive entirely.?.?.?

Jason

Jason,

I want to remark on the uniqueness of your recent strategy -- a question in which you bracket the Motive for the JFK Assassination, and concentrate only on the Method of the JFK Assassination.  

Your logic begins with the axiom that  "most of the time, the method of murder has little to do with the motive."   

If the US Government (i.e. the CIA) wanted to kill JFK, it is unlikely that they would have used the crudest possible method, open to possible detection.  They would have been super-smooth about it.   Washington DC isn't Hollywood.

Let's look at Dallas for a moment, as part of the "method" of killing JFK.   The Dallas County Jail was only one block away from the TSBD.  In 1963 (said a Dallas tour guide) public executions were still performed inside the Dallas County Jail building.

Also, the parking lot behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll was a parking lot for Sheriff's Deputies and other Dallas County Jail workers in 1963.  It was regularly occupied by Dallas Deputies, Police and Officers in uniform and in plain clothes.

As historian Walt Brown (1995) argued, if money or outsiders were involved, we would have seen a lot of blackmail.  The best assassins are natives; fanatical volunteers; highly skilled; easily blended with the locals; immune from local authorities.  For Walt Brown, the Radical Right members among the Dallas Police best fit this bill.

The Dallas Police controlled the manpower, the motorcade route, the crime scenes, the witnesses, the evidence, the media, the suspect, the release of suspects, the suspect’s family, the investigation.  According to Walt Brown, the Radical Right members among the Dallas Police did not fail -- they succeeded brilliantly.  The Dallas Police violation of the evidence and scene of the crime was nothing less than brilliant.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/31/2017 at 2:23 PM, Jason Ward said:

What does the method of the murder tell us about the circumstances of the murderers, ignoring motive entirely.?.?.?

For me, it shows extremely desperate circumstances, where the risk is worth it.

In relation to what Michael Clark was saying, I can see a job being contracted out to scrappy indiviuals, but I question whether an extremely important, high value target job would be handed to scappy individuals where the potential for failure could be high(There's a certain amount risk in any operation, no matter who's pulling it off). There would have to be multiple contigencies in place ready to go, as well as fall guys, if said job failed. If the target survies, it gets even harder. Investigation, evidence, press, etc., all have to be controlled and managed.

Edited by Roger DeLaria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Roger DeLaria said:

For me, it shows extremely desperate circumstances, where the risk is worth it.

In relation to what Michael Clark was saying, I can see a job being contracted out to scrappy indiviuals, but I question whether an extremely important, high value target job would be handed to scappy individuals where the potential for failure could be high(There's a certain amount risk in any operation, no matter who's pulling it off). There would have to be multiple contigencies in place ready to go, as well as fall guys, if said job failed. If the target survies, it gets even harder. Investigation, evidence, press, etc., all have to be controlled and managed.

Hi Roger, In my view, the failure angle was quite well covered. The Perps were Anti Castro Cubans who would have been identified as Pro Castro, along with the sheep dipped LHO, and a war with Cuba would have stymied any investigation or discussion of the facts; whether JFK was wounded or alive. My theory states that as things turned out, that the Anti Castro Cubans got double crossed by the presentation  of a lone-nut instead of a conspiracy. The perps wanted and expected an invasion of Cuba and they got double-crossed.

More and more, I become convinced that the perps were the same guys that turned up at watergate, in order to get Nixon to act on Cuba. Hunt, Mccord, Barker (all CIA), Gonzales, Sturgis, Baldwin, and Liddy.

Some patsy-perp was killed or wounded on the knoll as per the plan indicating conspiracy. That death, person or body were hidden, to foment the lone-nut tale.

All bases were covered. If the double-cross or the assassination failed, the perps would get their war with Cuba, and few outside of Cuba would have lamented that outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The job of the Radical Right was to see no evil and hear no evil, but they were to make a lot of noise and static, creating the expectation of the attempt, and making it difficult to detect. There job was almost exclusively passive in nature until the fact of the hit came-to-be and the time came for clean-up, cover-up and the suppression of witnesses and facts.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

I want to remark on the uniqueness of your recent strategy -- a question in which you bracket the Motive for the JFK Assassination, and concentrate only on the Method of the JFK Assassination.  

Your logic begins with the axiom that  "most of the time, the method of murder has little to do with the motive."   

If the US Government (i.e. the CIA) wanted to kill JFK, it is unlikely that they would have used the crudest possible method, open to possible detection.  They would have been super-smooth about it.   Washington DC isn't Hollywood.

Let's look at Dallas for a moment, as part of the "method" of killing JFK.   The Dallas County Jail was only one block away from the TSBD.  In 1963 (said a Dallas tour guide) public executions were still performed inside the Dallas County Jail building.

Also, the parking lot behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll was a parking lot for Sheriff's Deputies and other Dallas County Jail workers in 1963.  It was regularly occupied by Dallas Deputies, Police and Officers in uniform and in plain clothes.

As historian Walt Brown (1995) argued, if money or outsiders were involved, we would have seen a lot of blackmail.  The best assassins are natives; fanatical volunteers; highly skilled; easily blended with the locals; immune from local authorities.  For Walt Brown, the Radical Right members among the Dallas Police best fit this bill.

The Dallas Police controlled the manpower, the motorcade route, the crime scenes, the witnesses, the evidence, the media, the suspect, the release of suspects, the suspect’s family, the investigation.  According to Walt Brown, the Radical Right members among the Dallas Police did not fail -- they succeeded brilliantly.  The Dallas Police violation of the evidence and scene of the crime was nothing less than brilliant.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Yes,  Paul, I mostly agree.

The assassination could benefit from a refresh in mindset and modality of study. If CTers would look at the method of murder in the way that cops and the FBI look at any standard murder -without trying to conflate method and motive- they might find that method leads to the murderers even with an unknown motive.   

I say : stop looking at who benefits from the murder and start looking at who thinks this is the best way to kill JFK?   Who would choose Dallas?   Who would choose long range rifle shots?   Who would choose a moving target?   Who would choose risky uncontrolled variables like the Dallas doctors, the witnesses, the home movie makers?

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

For me, it shows extremely desperate circumstances, where the risk is worth it.

In relation to what Michael Clark was saying, I can see a job being contracted out to scrappy indiviuals, but I question whether an extremely important, high value target job would be handed to scappy individuals where the potential for failure could be high(There's a certain amount risk in any operation, no matter who's pulling it off). There would have to be multiple contigencies in place ready to go, as well as fall guys, if said job failed. If the target survies, it gets even harder. Investigation, evidence, press, etc., all have to be controlled and managed.

Agreed.

Dallas is a sign of desperation.   Most of the contingencies were NOT managed well - which is why most people have always thought it was a conspiracy.

A believable Lone Nut is John Hinckley.  If I'm Hoover and want the Lone Nut assassin killing Kennedy, I do a Hinckley right in DC.   The whole Oswald Dealey Plaza thing is as far from Hinckley as you can get and entirely unnecessary for killing Kennedy at the hands of a Lone Nut.

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

M

18 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Yes,  Paul, I mostly agree.

The assassination could benefit from a refresh in mindset and modality of study. If CTers would look at the method of murder in the way that cops and the FBI look at any standard murder -without trying to conflate method and motive- they might find that method leads to the murderers even with an unknown motive.   

I say : stop looking at who benefits from the murder and start looking at who thinks this is the best way to kill JFK?   Who would choose Dallas?   Who would choose long range rifle shots?   Who would choose a moving target?   Who would choose risky uncontrolled variables like the Dallas doctors, the witnesses, the home movie makers?

 

Jason

Investigators conflate method and motive all the time. How often have you heard of police characterize a likely perp by how a murder was committed? “This was up close and personal, the perp knew the victim”; “ this was obviously a case of simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time”; “this was obviously a thrill killing, we’ll hear from this guy again”; “this was obviously a contract killing”. Jason your claim makes no sense.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

.......   The whole Oswald Dealey Plaza thing is as far from Hinckley as you can get and entirely unnecessary for killing Kennedy at the hands of a Lone Nut.

 

Jason

Very good point. A revealed conspiracy was supposed to be the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

For me, it shows extremely desperate circumstances, where the risk is worth it.

In relation to what Michael Clark was saying, I can see a job being contracted out to scrappy individuals, but I question whether an extremely important, high value target job would be handed to scrappy individuals where the potential for failure could be high.  (There's a certain amount risk in any operation, no matter who's pulling it off).

There would have to be multiple contingencies in place ready to go, as well as fall guys, if said job failed. If the target survives, it gets even harder. Investigation, evidence, press, etc., all have to be controlled and managed.

Roger,

This is why I think that a Radical Right plot is most plausible.   Dallas was the US capital for Radical Right fanatics in 1963.

The king of those fanatics was Ex-General Edwin Walker -- who led the protests against James Meredith as the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University on September 30, 1962 -- and who was sent to an insane asylum on October 1, 1962 by JFK and RFK for his efforts.

After a Grand Jury acquitted Walker in January, 1963 from all charges related to Ole Miss, he vowed revenge in his speeches to the Radical Right, coast to coast.  Most of the USA forgot all about General Walker, but the USA Radical Right made Walker into their poster-boy, so to speak.

Walker lived in Dallas, where he enjoyed extraordinary popularity and liberties.  Walker was still a pal of H.L. Hunt, the richest man in Dallas, and Walker was a force to be reckoned with in Right-wing Dallas.  

According to former FBI Agent, William Turner (late member of this Forum) in his book, Power on the Right (1973), one had to be a member of the Radical Right (with the KKK welcome) to get a job on the Dallas Police in those days.

Scholar and authority Chris Cravens (1993) reported that when UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was humiliated in Dallas on October 24, 1963 (only four weeks before the JFK Assassination), it was well-known in Dallas that Ex-General Walker had been the organizing force of his Radical Right quislings to accomplish this task.

FBI agent James Hosty wrote in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996) that his main FBI task in 1963 was to track "General Walker and his Dallas Minutemen".  

Ex-General Walker was the leader of the Radical Right in Dallas when JFK rode through town.  The Radical Right in Dallas was just desperate enough to believe that they could blame the Communists for the murder of JFK.   Following the lead of General Edwin Walker -- they would have done that, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Roger,

This is why I think that a Radical Right plot is most plausible.   Dallas was the US capital for Radical Right fanatics.

The king of those fanatics was Ex-General Edwin Walker -- who led the protests against James Meredith as the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University in 1962 -- and who was sent to an insane asylum by JFK and RFK for his efforts.

After a Grand Jury acquitted Walker in January, 1963 from all charges related to Ole Miss, he vowed revenge.  Most of the USA forgot all about General Walker, but the USA Radical Right made Walker into their poster-boy.

Walker lived in Dallas, where he enjoyed extraordinary popularity and liberties.  Walker was still a pal of H.L. Hunt, the richest man in Dallas, and he was a force to be reckoned with in Right-wing Dallas.  

According to former FBI Agent, William Turner, in his book, Power on the Right (1973), one had to be a member of the Radical Right to get a job on the Dallas Police from 1841-1964. 

Scholar and authority Chris Cravens (1993) reported that when UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was humiliated in Dallas in October 1963 (only four weeks before the JFK Assassination), it was well-known in Dallas that Ex-General Walker had been the organizing force of Radical Right minions to accomplish this task.

FBI agent James Hosty wrote in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996) that his main FBI task in 1963 was to track "General Walker and his Dallas Minutemen".  

Ex-General Walker was the leader of the Radical Right in Dallas when JFK rode through town.  The Radical Right in Dallas was just desperate enough to believe that they could blame the Communists for the murder of JFK.   Following the lead of General Edwin Walker -- they would have done that, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

One of the problems with your hypothesis is that there were many "capitals for right-wing fanatics" in our country besides Dallas AND according to Jeff Caufield the overwhelming majority of key actors in the JFK murder plot lived outside Texas.  In addition, most of the fanatics who were deemed a potential threat to JFK (according to the Secret Service records) lived outside Texas.

The second major problem with your hypothesis -- which I have mentioned before -- is that when criminals of any type successfully complete a crime without detection then they NEVER begin a public relations campaign to re-open the case. 

In other words, if law enforcement makes a conclusion about the likely perps involved in a crime (and about their enablers or facilitators), but the law enforcement conclusion is entirely mistaken, THEN there is no conceivable rational reason why any actual participant in the crime would EVER want to bring new attention to their already successful crime. 

Why not?   

(1) Because the real criminal(s) could not control any new investigation.  Consequently, newly energized law enforcement (and media) scrutiny could easily produce a result where investigators discover the actual criminals or discover clues which would lead them to those criminals.

(2) Because in every criminal enterprise there are weak links, including people who cannot handle the stress or anxiety which inevitably results when dozens or hundreds of investigators and researchers start pursuing new leads.   

But Paul Trejo wants us to believe that Edwin Walker and his minions AND other JBS members supposedly involved in the plotting, in the financing, and in the execution or cover-up of the most sensational crime of the century up to that time WELCOMED such a re-examination which is why they UNIVERSALLY rejected the Warren Commission findings about a "lone gunman" being responsible.

Sorry, Paul, but your hypothesis contradicts EVERYTHING we know about (1) human nature and human behavior and (2) plain, simple logic and (3) all accumulated knowledge from history regarding ALL previous conspiratorial murder plots.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am posting the following article from the John Birch Society magazine website [The New American] for three reasons. 

(1)  First---it will introduce many readers here on EF to a NEW conspiracy theory -- but one which you probably have never considered or heard of before.

(2)  Second, there is a revelation in this article which I think is particularly newsworthy (summarized below).

(3)  As you will see, the Birch Society continues to publish material (even in 2018) which states that JFK was murdered by the type of people whom the JBS despises and whom the JBS has fought for its entire existence.

I include the current comments section because it reveals the mental viciousness of Birchers who believe this stuff.

 
This article quotes Trump senior adviser, Roger Stone, as making the following comment during his interview.
 

 
Trump has a pedigree that suggests he is for real, too. 
 
“People don't know it, but Trump comes from a long line of anti-communists,” Stone explained. 
 
His father was a quiet funder of the John Birch Society, his father was a personal friend of Billy Graham, a personal friend of [JBS founder] Robert Welch, a supporter of Dr. Fred Schwarz's [Christian] Anti-Communism Crusade, and had been a major, major fundraiser and donor for Barry Goldwater. He kept his national politics quiet, because of course in Queens, all of the zoning and permitting for the Trump residential real-estate business was controlled by machine Democrats.”
Monday, 01 January 2018

Deep State “Plan C” Is to Kill Trump, Advisor Roger Stone Warns

Written by  Alex Newman

Longtime Donald Trump advisor and confidante Roger Stone warned that the globalist establishment would do everything in its power to stop the president from draining the swamp, even if it means taking him out John F. Kennedy style. With the “mainstream” media's credibility gone, and the Deep State feeling threatened in an unprecedented way, the “globalist cabal” is desperate and willing to do anything necessary to get rid of Trump, who is shown here with Stone. But it is not over yet.  

The Deep State's “Plan A,” Stone said, is the imploding “investigation” into alleged “Russian collusion” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. If and when that fails, which Stone suggested was likely, the establishment would move to “Plan B.” In essence, that plot would involve trying to get a majority of Trump's cabinet to declare him unfit for office. This would allow Trump to be removed under the U.S. Constitution's 25th Amendment — another scheme Stone said would probably flop. Last but not least, though, if all else fails, Stone warned of “Plan C”: Killing the president.   

In a wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump — and into his enemies and their tactics. “It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties,” he explained. “I say that as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in.” lg.php?bannerid=3020&campaignid=405&zone

“So I reached the conclusion, with the nomination of Mitt Romney — Council on Foreign Relations and a certified globalist in the Bush tradition — that the old Republican Party was dead,” Stone said. Donald Trump's election, he continued, represented the “hostile takeover of the old Republican Party, which we now hope to remake in his image as a party that stands for economic nationalism, that stands for putting American interests ahead of globalist interests, and re-affirms our sovereign rights as Americans.”

“He's a shock to the system,” added Stone, a legendary political operative known for “dirty tricks” who, in addition to his longtime relationship with Trump, has served as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Senator Bob Dole, and others. “Now, I think the establishment, at this time, when the president has just passed his tax cut, has cut these regulations — so you see a record stock market, you see unemployment at all time lows, you see a booming housing market — it's easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the Insiders have for this president, and to underestimate their resolve to remove him.”      

If all else fails, Stone believes the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president. “Having written books on the Kennedy assassination, having highlighted the attempted assassination of president Ronald Reagan by people deeply associated with the Bush family, I think the establishment has Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C,” he said.

“Plan A is very clearly a take-down by the illegitimate Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed not by Jeff Sessions, not at the direction of the president, but by this fellow Rosenstein, who is a close associate of Mueller and [disgraced former FBI boss James] Comey, and who is a globalist Bush insider, a liberal Republican, who somehow got the number two position in the Trump Justice Department,” Stone warned, saying the establishment was now hoping Trump would fire Mueller to regain the upper hand.

Unfortunately for the Deep State, Stone said, it looks less and less likely that Mueller will succeed in bringing down Trump. That is, at least in part, because of the explosive revelations surrounding what Stone called the “naked partisanship and the bias of Mueller and his partisan hit squad.” Indeed, the Mueller team is completely discredited already, Stone explained.

Among other issues, Stone pointed to the revelations about Peter Strzok, the top FBI agent on Mueller's Special Counsel task force purporting to investigate alleged links between Trump and the Kremlin. In text messages sent to a colleague, Strzok was extremely critical of Trump, even discussing the creation of an “insurance policy” in case Trump won the election. Stone also cited revelations about the campaign contributions from individuals on the task force to the Clintons and the Obamas. In addition, Stone noted that a lawyer for Ben Rhodes, “one of the people involved in Obama's crimes of illegal surveillance against Donald Trump,” is a member of the task force.

“The fraudulent nature of the Mueller probe is becoming more and more apparent,” Stone continued, suggesting that there should be some “additional examination” of a suspiciously timed death that allowed Mueller to acquire all Trump's campaign records. Stone did not elaborate on that point.

The other thing that is becoming more and more apparent, he said, is that “neither Mr. Mueller nor the House nor the Senate Intelligence committees nor the Judiciary committees in those bodies have been able to find any evidence of Russian collusion.”

“Sorry, but Don Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer that provided nothing is perfectly legal and proper,” Stone said. “There's nothing wrong with it. She produced no evidence, but what we did learn is that she was in the country thanks to the Obama FBI, without a visa, and she was popping up and being photographed at Hillary rallies and in John McCain's office. She's a Quisling! It's a set up! She's a spy. She delivered nothing. It's an attempt to entrap Donny Jr. in a meeting that's perfectly innocuous and perfectly legal.”

So, Mueller's “investigation” is the establishment's “Plan A,” Stone reiterated. But it is rapidly falling apart. And so, if and when Plan A fails, the establishment will move to “Plan B,” Stone said. “That's the 25th Amendment Plan,” he added. Basically, under that scenario, a majority of the cabinet and the vice president would need to reach the decision that the president is unable to discharge his duties — “that he was mentally incompetent, that he was crazy,” as Stone put it. If that happened, they could, theoretically, remove him from office, legally speaking. However, if that were to happen, the president could also appeal the decision to the U.S. House of Representatives.

But Stone thinks this is a danger. “If Mueller should fail in his illegitimate coup d'etat to take down the president in some phony baloney process indictment — perjury in the matter of the firing of Comey, or obstruction of justice pertaining to the indictment of [Trump's first National Security Adviser Micheal] Flynn, both of which I think are bogus fabrications — then I think you will see an uptick in the 'Trump-is-crazy' talk,” Stone said. He noted that, already, such rhetoric was being heard from MSNBC talking head Joe Scarborough and Trump's nemesis, the “very fake news” network CNN, as Trump describes it.

If Plan A fails and Plan B goes into effect, Stone predicted much more of that rhetoric from people such as CNN talking head Don Lemon, Council on Foreign Relations member Senator Robert Corker (R-Tenn.), Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), and perhaps even Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), another CFR member, if he is still around. “So we'll see an uptick in all of this 'Trump is mentally imbalanced, Trump is insane, Trump must be removed,'” Stone warned. “Now you have to examine the extent to which they can whip up that hysteria as a backdrop, because without that hysteria, such a political move on the president will fail.”

Stone warned that even some of Trump's most senior officials would throw him under the bus if given the opportunity. “I can tell you, there are members of Trump's cabinet that would stick a dagger in his heart,” he warned, echoing other warnings that he has offered publicly in recent weeks. “There are globalist insiders who, for one reason or another got into this cabinet, who do not share the president's vision of reform, and are not loyal to him as I am and so many Americans are.”

When asked whether Trump was successfully draining the swamp, and what more needed to be done, Stone explained how Deep State insiders hostile to Trump ended up in positions of influence. “Unfortunately, I think that the president misunderstood early in the process that personnel is policy,” he said, pointing to Trump's decision to install establishment GOP operative Reince Priebus as chief of staff as an example of the problem. Stone also mentioned National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, a member of the globalist-minded CFR, on multiple occasions throughout the interview.   

Plan B is a threat. “I do think they will try a 25th Amendment ploy,” Stone said. “I also think it will fail because of a booming economy, and the fact that Donald Trump is a shrewd operator in his own right. My concern, in a nut shell, is that the president's lawyers — at least in stage one — are walking him into the blades. A legal strategy of turning over hundreds of thousands of White House documents to the special counsel, relying on his innate fairness and lack of bias to determine that there is no crime, waiving all executive privilege, probably without even reviewing these documents, to me, that is folly.”

If Plan B fails, the Deep State would move to Plan C, Stone cautioned. “We know Plan C. We saw it in the case of President John F. Kennedy, who had crossed the Central Intelligence Agency and the Deep State over both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs, both, I think, central,” he said. “JFK crossed organized crime, who had financed his campaign for president in Chicago and in West Virginia, he crossed Big Texas Oil, because he was fighting for the repeal of the oil depletion allowance, and he was fighting the international bankers to restore at least a silver dollar, if not a gold-backed dollar.”

“So John Kennedy, an anti-communist, had threatened all of the establishment Deep Staters of his day,” Stone continued. “Does this sound familiar? And of course, we know what happened — he was taken out in a coup engineered, as I argue in my book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, by Lyndon Johnson, errand boy for the Deep State.” While some who have studied the matter dispute the notion of LBJ's engineering a conspiracy to kill the president, Stone's investigation into the matter has been widely praised by historians and prominent analysts.  

Stone, who was close to President Nixon, also drew a parallel with that president's less violent downfall. “We also saw it in 1974 with Richard Nixon, who had a reputation as an anti-communist,” said Stone. “Good guy. Who ever knew that Dick Nixon was a peacemaker? Who ever knew that the munitions boys wouldn't make the kind of money they made with a raging war in Vietnam. He had to go, too.”

“So we've seen, from my point of view, two previous coups d'etat, one peaceful, but political, one violent,” Stone continued. “And I think the Deep State will stop at nothing to try to remove this president.”

The reason the Deep State is so serious about stopping Trump, Stone suggested, was because the president is, in fact, who he says he is. Indeed, Stone emphasized repeatedly throughout the interview that Trump was the real deal: a true anti-establishment patriot determined to “Make America Great Again” and “Drain the Swamp.” While other politicians talk the talk, Trump walks the walk.

Trump has a pedigree that suggests he is for real, too. “People don't know it, but Trump comes from a long line of anti-communists,” Stone explained. “His father was a quiet funder of the John Birch Society, his father was a personal friend of Billy Graham, a personal friend of [JBS founder] Robert Welch, a supporter of Dr. Fred Schwarz's [Christian] Anti-Communism Crusade, and had been a major, major fundraiser and donor for Barry Goldwater. He kept his national politics quiet, because of course in Queens, all of the zoning and permitting for the Trump residential real-estate business was controlled by machine Democrats.”  

Before becoming president, and despite funding both parties over the years, Trump was typically conservative and populist in his views, Stone continued. “Donald Trump and his father were proud members of the Ronald Reagan's 1980 finance committee,” Stone explained. “Donald Trump obviously gave, when he was in real-estate in Manhattan, to both Democrats and Republicans, but his political leanings have always been right of center and kind of populist oriented. So we saw eye to eye.”

“Trump is a real American, a patriot, he's a real believer in Americana, and also in American superiority — American exceptionalism, if you will — and a believer in American sovereignty,” Stone said. “He's always been deeply suspicious of the international types that he was happy to sell condominiums to at inflated prices, but he never shared their politics.”   

One key element of the Trump phenomena that terrifies the elites so much is his “independence,” Stone explained. “This is a man so wealthy that he doesn't need George Soros, he doesn't need the Warburgs or the Rothschilds — that he has his independent wealth that he's made in real-estate, and therefore I always viewed him as unbought and unbossed,” Stone said. “Anybody who has tried to boss Donald Trump around knows that that won't work. He's very much his own man.”

And now, Trump threatens the status quo — as well as the Deep State's power. “We've reached a point in American politics where the two-party duopoly that has run the country into the ground — the Bushes and the Clintons working together in one essentially seamless crime family, where they have no real ideology, it's not that they're communists or socialists or liberals, they'll use all that, but it's really about power and money,” Stone said. “And we have seen this two party duopoly, who violently opposed Donald Trump in the election and still violently oppose his presidency today; I view Trump as an antidote to that. I view Trump as an outsider who will challenge that two-party orthodoxy.” That is why the president is in so much danger.    

According to one of the makers of the new documentary Get Me Roger Stone, after Donald Trump himself, the man most responsible for the fact that Trump is in the White House today is none other than Roger Stone. “As early as 1988, I began to view Donald Trump as a potential president,” Stone told The New American, adding that Trump has always been his own strategist. “As he would tell you, in 1988, he wasn't all that interested, he still had real-estate mountains to climb, and many billions more to make.” But since the 80s, the two have been “simpatico,” Stone said. Now, Stone is working to ensure that the Swamp will be drained, while helping Trump to Make America Great Again.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.

Related articles:

Deep State Boasts: We’re Sabotaging Trump From the Inside

Globalist McMaster Purges Trump Loyalists, Protects Obamaites

Deep State: Follow the Rothschild, Soros, and Rockefeller Money

Deep State Secret Societies: Skull & Bones, Bohemians, Illuminati

Deep State Behind the Deep State: CFR, Trilaterals, Bilderberg

Deep State “Intelligence” Threatens Trump, Self-Government

“Deep State” Bureaucracy vs. Trump, America, Constitution

Roger Stone, Former Nixon Hit Man, Now a Libertarian

Is “Trumpism” Really “Bircherism”?

Trump vs. the Establishment

Mueller Record: Can He Be Trusted with Power?

Dershowitz: Mueller "Going Way Beyond His Authority"

 

COMMENTS:

 

Oldtymepatriot  a few seconds ago

While Donald Trump isn't as far reaching in his aims to Make America Great Again as I would like, he is the best thing to happen to this nation since Ronald Reagan. I have had a problem with his appointment of some of the very people who oppose him to positions where they can do their dirty work as well as retaining others who represent the NWO. As the good from his actions thus far really sink in with the public, his popularity and that of the direction of his agenda will grow. I think "plan A is all but written off and plan B would also fail. As for plan C, I think if that were tried and successful, it would lead to a conflict similar to only two other such events in this nation's history with the outcome being either a complete defeat of the globalists or a split nation of a free and Constitutional segment and another segment falling under the global oligarchy's control.

2010 was the year the U.S. as a free and sovereign nation was supposed end, but Ronald Reagan's surprise win set the timetable back 8 years and now, the NWO is in a panic with Donald Trump "throwing water on their fire". Instead of becoming a member state in a North America Union with wide open borders, we are on the way to having a (long overdue) wall secured border to help control who enters our great sovereign nation.

 

ConPatriot1234  13 hours ago

Simple. Take out the Deep State before it takes out Trump.

 

Cheh Low  9 hours ago

Drain the swamp and throw crooked Hillary and corrupt Obama as well as evil Sorro in jail. Also confiscate all their wealth and give them to the poor in this country. In order to do so President Trump must appoint a new AG that is not with the swamp and has the guts to do the right job. President Trump must fire the no ball AG Sessions. Nothing will get the country in the right track and protect President Trump as long as the no ball AG Sessions is still around.

 

Matlonc  Cheh Low  8 hours ago

Obama was a puppet. Tell me how a man who has no background in anything other than reading other peoples speeches and looking intelligent in an expensive suit was able to win the presidency by himself- after only one 1/2 term in the senate where he basically campaigned most of the time? Every election he won was by destroying the opponent- kind of what the left has to do in order to win because their ideas do not work and if their tru agenda was exposed would not get garner them 40% of the vote.

o     

Matlonc  Cheh Low  8 hours ago

by the way before you read the comments below know that I agree with you- sessions is part of the problem. I think him being the first guy to stand at Trump's side was part of the establishments insurance in case Trump won so they could remain in positions of power throughout the upper levels of our intelligence agencies without fear of the DOJ stopping them and investigating all of their corruption. Sounds a bit far fetched, however if you think about it sessions is the perfect plant- kind of a goober who comes off as trustworthy but in the end has to many ties to the swamp.

 

Cheh Low  Matlonc  5 hours ago

Jeff Sessions is a Trojan Horse from the swamp.

 

hillbilly  11 hours ago

He best get some body guards he can really trust,wear a vest and pack a 6 gun....

 

Justice Seeker  10 hours ago

He'll be ok, he will be dead but not dead. As prophesied, he will rise from the dead and all of the world will follow him.

 

Matlonc  Justice Seeker  8 hours ago

I share your thoughts- even if they somehow kill trump he has started a movement that will not die. To many people's eyes have been opened that were not aware of what the politicians are really all about- one giant cabal, the two party system is a fraud- our money, and their power. It is too late for Trump to be stopped regardless of what they do to him personally. However, I pray for his safety because if he is allowed to govern for 8 years this country will once again be at the top of the mountain and lead the world.

 

Cheh Low  Matlonc  4 hours ago

You are so right.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

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

×