The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover

[David Andrews]

50 minutes ago, Jim Harwood said:

According to sources LBJ didn't even want to run for President in 1964. He wanted to hold the office together until the 1964 election was decided and then he would leave the spoils for the winner. He came under tremendous pressure  to run in 1964 and of course he resigned in 1968. 

LBJ also didn't believe in the single bullet theory, didn't think going to war in Vietnam was a good idea, and didn't believe the Gulf of Tonkin story or the intelligence reports. Later after leaving office he confided during an interview that he believed we were "running a damn Murder Inc. in the Caribbean " . It wasn't long after that interview that LBJ departed this world. 

For a guy that's often fingered as a JFK mastermind killer, he sure went about covering it up in a strange way. He wasn't even a Warren Commission supporter nor was he a single bullet theory supporter.

LBJ didn't want a national-level investigative commission, he wanted it all explained away in Texas as a state crime.  He supported the WC at the time the Report was released because it evaluated and approved FBI investigative findings, partly by weighing them against witness testimony.  At the time, this support included not questioning the single-bullet theory, or questioning John Connally's objection to it. 

I don't know of any instance where Johnson objected to the SBT, except in the post-Presidential interviews where he expressed general non-confidence in the WR.  Not to split hairs, but that's not in itself a statement against the SBT, especially since he also speculated that a foreign power could have directed Oswald. 

Johnson's most explicit statement, to Leo Janos, doesn't go so far as to involve multiple gunmen: "'I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger,' he explained to Janos."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/06/the-assassination-tapes/302964/?fbclid=IwAR1zC6r8ftGnxbkRT57XeUqcTQhNlBll_0YtV-n3HJw5YpEiM35a9C7R9Us

Talking along these lines - also to Howard K. Smith, and lastly to Walter Cronkite for CBS - deflected attention from any involvement of himself, though he later regretted speaking at all and asked that CBS quash his more extreme statements. 

If you read what Johnson said in his taped phone conversations from the White House (article linked above), Johnson's first reaction is to put a spin on the alleged "secret" of the Garrison investigation, an investigation that pointed to the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans, not a Castro-sponsored Oswald.  People have been known to conduct structured conversations when they know they are being recorded, in order to deflect blame from the guilty.  Johnson may have wanted such a record, in order to challenge any perceptions about US conspiracy the Garrison investigation might raise, and deflect blame for the JFKA on Bobby Kennedy, still alive during the 1967 calls.  Putting Bobby in the spotlight for ordering a CIA-Mafia hit on Castro would be a blow to RFK's political potency.  It would also call Garrison's investigation into question. And it would partly absolve the CIA of blame, and potentially keep a candidate the Company feared out of the race.  Lyndon was "a gamblin' man," as he himself said.

What about the famous overheard LBJ statement to the Joint Chiefs about Vietnam?  "Just get me elected and you can have your damned war" [paraphrase].  Of course Johnson feared being at the helm of a land war in Asia, and would have avoided it.  Of course he considered not running.  But he made his choices, and perhaps not for fame and power alone, as his domestic policies testify.

Edited September 12, 2019 by David Andrews

[Jim Harwood]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

LBJ didn't want a national-level investigative commission, he wanted it all explained away in Texas as a state crime.  He supported the WC at the time the Report was released because it evaluated and approved FBI investigative findings, partly by weighing them against witness testimony.  At the time, this support included not questioning the single-bullet theory, or questioning John Connally's objection to it. 

I don't know of any instance where Johnson objected to the SBT, except in the post-Presidential interviews where he expressed general non-confidence in the WR.  Not to split hairs, but that's not in itself a statement against the SBT, especially since he also speculated that a foreign power could have directed Oswald. 

Johnson's most explicit statement, to Leo Janos, doesn't go so far as to involve multiple gunmen: "'I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger,' he explained to Janos."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/06/the-assassination-tapes/302964/?fbclid=IwAR1zC6r8ftGnxbkRT57XeUqcTQhNlBll_0YtV-n3HJw5YpEiM35a9C7R9Us

Talking along these lines - also to Howard K. Smith, and lastly to Walter Cronkite for CBS - deflected attention from any involvement of himself, though he later regretted speaking at all and asked that CBS quash his more extreme statements. 

If you read what Johnson said in his taped phone conversations from the White House (article linked above), Johnson's first reaction is to put a spin on the alleged "secret" of the Garrison investigation, an investigation that pointed to the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans, not a Castro-sponsored Oswald.  People have been known to conduct structured conversations when they know they are being recorded, in order to deflect blame from the guilty.  Johnson may have wanted such a record, in order to challenge any perceptions about US conspiracy the Garrison investigation might raise, and deflect blame for the JFKA on Bobby Kennedy, still alive during the 1967 calls.  Putting Bobby in the spotlight for ordering a CIA-Mafia hit on Castro would be a blow to RFK's political potency.  It would also call Garrison's investigation into question. And it would partly absolve the CIA of blame, and potentially keep a candidate the Company feared out of the race.  Lyndon was "a gamblin' man," as he himself said.

What about the famous overheard LBJ statement to the Joint Chiefs about Vietnam?  "Just get me elected and you can have your damned war" [paraphrase].  Of course Johnson feared being at the helm of a land war in Asia, and would have avoided it.  Of course he considered not running.  But he made his choices, and perhaps not for fame and power alone, as his domestic policies testify.

You dont know of any instance where LBJ objected to the SBT? Then you've never listened to this 9/18/64 telephone call with Commission member Georgia Senator Richard Russell. Beginning at the 1:52 minute mark Russell relates to the President that he dissented to the conclusion that one bullet struck both Connally and Kennedy and said he doesn't believe it to which LBJ responds "well neither do I". Furthermore Russell who is the more interesting speaker in this phone call says to the President that he wanted the Justice Department lawyers who actually wrote the fake report (you can hear Russell complain earlier in the phone conversation that he hated the "staff" writing the report that he'd rather speak for himself) to make a notation in the report that Senator Russell dissents regarding the SBT. In fact one of Weisberg's books detailed the charade that was pulled on Russell by the Dulles/McCloy group. They had  Russell believe his doubts about the SBT had been noted in the report, when in fact his doubts never made the commission's final report. Weisberg said they went as far as having a fake stenographer present during Russell's statement. 

As far as  the Jano's interview I don't know what you're talking about. For the former President to say "we were running a damn Murder Inc. in the Caribbean" is quite a shocking comment. And let's not forget, the USA does not own these islands, these islands are under the control of the British Empire and they're off shore money havens for Dope Inc., the British world wide drug business.  So if there was a nest of assassins in the Caribbean they were under British control not the United States. That's the biggest miss that JFK buffs have. The assassination was not domestic but foreign. 

LBJ and Russell also discuss intelligence reports regarding alleged North Vietnamese attacks on US ships. LBJ is skeptical of the reports to say the least. He goes so far as to tell Russell he will not bomb anyone based on these fraudulent intelligence reports. I can only assume this is the Gulf of Tonkin from 1-1/2 months earlier. 

This bunk that LBJ was blood thirsty for Vietnam is not born out by the facts. What is born out by the facts is LBJ was one scared sob, wondering when the Kennedy assassins were going to kill him. He tried to flee the WH in 1965 and finally resigned in 1968. 

Quotes like "I'll get you your war just get me elected" is just more of the BS that's been introduced by the killers into the investigation of the Kennedy assassination. 

Enjoy the Russell/LBJ call from September 1964 if you have the time.

 

 

 

 

[David Josephs]

Isn't this thread about Hoover and Tolson?

[David Andrews]

Jim Harwood: LBJ has to kiss Russell's behind a little and seem to agree with him, since LBJ bullied Russell into joining the Warren Commission in an attempt to stack the panel.  He also doesn't want Russell venting publicly, only to him, the President who cornered him into accepting a seat.  Don't you ever BS people in order to make them go away?

Read the article in the link to see a decent history of Johnson's assassination comments, even if assembled by Max Holland, apologist for the lone gunman, the SBT, and the WCR.

[Jim Harwood]

8 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Jim Harwood: LBJ has to kiss Russell's behind a little and seem to agree with him, since LBJ bullied Russell into joining the Warren Commission in an attempt to stack the panel.  He also doesn't want Russell venting publicly, only to him, the President who cornered him into accepting a seat.  Don't you ever BS people in order to make them go away?

Read the article in the link to see a decent history of Johnson's assassination comments, even if assembled by Max Holland, apologist for the lone gunman, the SBT, and the WCR.

What do you mean "stack the panel"? We know from Donald Gibson's book the WC was never LBJ's idea. How stacked can the panel be when you're number #1 plant Senator Richard Russell is causing a group heart attack by wanting to have his dissent against the SBT included in the finished report? 

LBJ had zero to do with the JFK murder and wanted nothing to do with the Presidency in the aftermath of Dallas.  But I have no real clear idea what you're trying to suggest other than suggesting LBJ was a conspirator or a part of the cover up. The 9/18/64 telephone call between LBJ and Russell ought to clear both men as being part of the cover up. Hell they don't even understand the significance of Russell's objection to the SBT or LBJ's agreement to that objection. With his noted objection in the reports conclusions there goes the whole report;  and it's demise caused by a person you suggest is a LBJ plant in order to stack the panel? What great detective work. 

PS- Russell complains that he doesn't like the staff (made up of Justice Department lawyers) writing the report that he'd rather speak for himself. What about that complaint dont you understand?  Did you miss the recent Trump Dossier written by British Intelligence and used by complicit Justice and FBI people to get a FISA warrant concerning candidate Trump? What's the difference, I ask you what's the difference between the Trump dossier and the Warren Commission report? 

Lord Bertrand Russell who managed the conspiracy career of Mark Lane (Lane's book Rush to Judgement was written in London) was the first to publish a public critique of the Warren Report. He was given a copy of the report prior to it's release!  How does a foreigner get his hands on the report prior to it's release? Maybe he had some friendly Justice Department lawyer just like Christopher Steele had Bruce Ohr?

Are you guys simply so far gone you cannot figure out how the murder and cover up occurred and who was behind it? It was not LBJ or the US Government. 

 

[David Andrews]

I have never formally accused LBJ of involvement in JFK's murder.  I do not know what happened there.  CIA, Mob, anti-Castro Cubans - there's more reliable leads in that direction.

Johnson famously browbeat Earl Warren to head the Commission, until Warren was in tears from having his refusal denied.  Do you think Warren volunteered?  Warren lived in fear of right-wing assassins over his civil rights support and other liberal-libertarian actions.  There were "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards in Dallas over JFKA weekend.  Johnson knew that, as Committee head, Warren would make few waves.

The phone call in which Johnson ordered Russell to serve is a well-known recording.  LBJ would have expected Russell, once cowed into serving, to put a pro forma stamp on FBI findings.  But being forced to serve and to be made to seem to endorse the ridiculous SBT is why Russell was angry in the phone call you posted.

Edited September 12, 2019 by David Andrews

[Guest Rich Pope]

1 hour ago, Jim Harwood said:

What do you mean "stack the panel"? We know from Donald Gibson's book the WC was never LBJ's idea. How stacked can the panel be when you're number #1 plant Senator Richard Russell is causing a group heart attack by wanting to have his dissent against the SBT included in the finished report? 

LBJ had zero to do with the JFK murder and wanted nothing to do with the Presidency in the aftermath of Dallas.  But I have no real clear idea what you're trying to suggest other than suggesting LBJ was a conspirator or a part of the cover up. The 9/18/64 telephone call between LBJ and Russell ought to clear both men as being part of the cover up. Hell they don't even understand the significance of Russell's objection to the SBT or LBJ's agreement to that objection. With his noted objection in the reports conclusions there goes the whole report;  and it's demise caused by a person you suggest is a LBJ plant in order to stack the panel? What great detective work. 

PS- Russell complains that he doesn't like the staff (made up of Justice Department lawyers) writing the report that he'd rather speak for himself. What about that complaint dont you understand?  Did you miss the recent Trump Dossier written by British Intelligence and used by complicit Justice and FBI people to get a FISA warrant concerning candidate Trump? What's the difference, I ask you what's the difference between the Trump dossier and the Warren Commission report? 

Lord Bertrand Russell who managed the conspiracy career of Mark Lane (Lane's book Rush to Judgement was written in London) was the first to publish a public critique of the Warren Report. He was given a copy of the report prior to it's release!  How does a foreigner get his hands on the report prior to it's release? Maybe he had some friendly Justice Department lawyer just like Christopher Steele had Bruce Ohr?

Are you guys simply so far gone you cannot figure out how the murder and cover up occurred and who was behind it? It was not LBJ or the US Government. 

 

LBJ had zero to do with the JFK murder???  

Early March 1963, the Director of Central Intelligence, John McCone, began a series of delicate contacts outside his immediate circle.  The first government agency contacted was the FBI.  The first conferences with its director J. Edgar Hoover and Deputy Director William Sullivan were held on March 4th.  The head of the FBI was permanently kept informed about the CIA’s actions by his to aide William Sullivan.  

On March 13 and 15, the next delicate contacts were made to Walter Jenkins and Abe Fortas, top aides of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson.  Jenkins and Fortas, and with them of course the Vice President, were also kept informed about the rising plot.

As a result of these meetings, the two most important groups, the FBI and the future President of the United States, were hence quickly convinced to support the CIA.  

[Jim Harwood]

4 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I have never formally accused LBJ of involvement in JFK's murder.  I do not know what happened there.  CIA, Mob, anti-Castro Cubans - there's more reliable leads in that direction.

Johnson famously browbeat Earl Warren to head the Commission, until Warren was in tears from having his refusal denied.  Do you think Warren volunteered?  Warren lived in fear of right-wing assassins over his civil rights support and other liberal-libertarian actions.  There were "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards in Dallas over JFKA weekend.  Johnson knew that, as Committee head, Warren would make few waves.

The phone call in which Johnson ordered Russell to serve is a well-known recording.  LBJ would have expected Russell, once cowed into serving, to put a pro forma stamp on FBI findings.  But being forced to serve and to be made to seem to endorse the ridiculous SBT is why Russell was angry in the phone call you posted.

What in the world does the gibberish above actually mean? Let's see we have an Earl Warren in tears at the hands of LBJ, we have an ultra liberal Warren living in fear of right wing assassins because of his incredible record of support on civil rights and other liberal-libertarian actions?  Hell David Libertarians don't believe in Government, they just follow the dictate of Aleister Crowley "do as thou wilt" . And how does Impeach Warren bill boards play a role in Senator Richard Russells demand that his SBT dissent be made a part of the Warren Commission conclusion? The billboards in Dallas were all part of the window dressing for the assassination. 

And this is a real doozy

QUOTE:

But being forced to serve and to be made to seem to endorse the ridiculous SBT is why Russell was angry in the phone call you posted.

 Harold Weisberg published a series of books called Whitewash  and in one of them he dedicated an entire section to secret meetings of the commission including the meeting that had to do with Richard Russells "dissent" regarding the SBT. According to the book the McCloy/Dulles apparatus had a fake stenographer come in and take down Senator Richard Russells concern with the validity of the SBT. What do you think would have happened in September 1964 had the report contained the statement by one of the esteemed Commission members that stated "I don't believe it and therefore I am not putting my name to the conclusion that the same bullet that hit Governor Connally also struck President Kennedy".

Some master mind President-- he sends Dulles and McCloy a man to stack the panel as you say and that man tries to destroy the entire fake report. You say he did it out of childish spite. To me that is the most childish comment I have ever read concerning the Kennedy case. 

Bye bye cover up. 

 

 

[Jim Harwood]

4 hours ago, Rich Pope said:

LBJ had zero to do with the JFK murder???  

Early March 1963, the Director of Central Intelligence, John McCone, began a series of delicate contacts outside his immediate circle.  The first government agency contacted was the FBI.  The first conferences with its director J. Edgar Hoover and Deputy Director William Sullivan were held on March 4th.  The head of the FBI was permanently kept informed about the CIA’s actions by his to aide William Sullivan.  

On March 13 and 15, the next delicate contacts were made to Walter Jenkins and Abe Fortas, top aides of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson.  Jenkins and Fortas, and with them of course the Vice President, were also kept informed about the rising plot.

As a result of these meetings, the two most important groups, the FBI and the future President of the United States, were hence quickly convinced to support the CIA.  

I haven't a clue what point you think you made with the gibberish above.

[David Andrews]

Harwood: I believe you have a limited understanding of the term libertarian, some questionable reading skills, and a poor conception of how to frame an argument without resorting to invective.

Wiki on a Warren court decision: "Griswold v. Connecticut struck down a state law that restricted access to contraceptives and established a constitutional right to privacy.'

Wiki on libertarianism: "a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.^[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association and individual judgment.^[

^"[...] Libertarians have been advocates and activists of civil liberties, including free love and free thought.^[46][47] Advocates of free love viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of individual sovereignty and they particularly stressed women's rights as most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures "

Edited September 13, 2019 by David Andrews

[Guest Rich Pope]

1 hour ago, Jim Harwood said:

I haven't a clue what point you think you made with the gibberish above. 

It shows LBJ knew about the plot well in advance while others are claiming LBJ had nothing to do with it.  http://hookedonphonics.com/0/index.html

Edited September 13, 2019 by Rich Pope

[Jim Harwood]

35 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

It shows LBJ knew about the plot well in advance while others are claiming LBJ had nothing to do with it.  http://hookedonphonics.com/0/index.html

How does it show that?  According to the official government report there was no "plot" so therefore what are you talking about?

[Jim Harwood]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

Harwood: I believe you have a limited understanding of the term libertarian, some questionable reading skills, and a poor conception of how to frame an argument without resorting to invective.

Wiki on a Warren court decision: "Griswold v. Connecticut struck down a state law that restricted access to contraceptives and established a constitutional right to privacy.'

Wiki on libertarianism: "a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.^[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association and individual judgment.^[

^"[...] Libertarians have been advocates and activists of civil liberties, including free love and free thought.^[46][47] Advocates of free love viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of individual sovereignty and they particularly stressed women's rights as most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures "

David, you lack the ability to think. Now we are off on a mission to define the word libertarian as opposed to the Russell issue. Libertarians do not believe in Government, they believe they should be free to do "their own thing" and in all the ways that statement implies.

Your own pasted definition clearly shows they are mad as haters. 

Now what is your darn argument?  So far you've made no points of any relevance. 

[David Andrews]

You also have a narrow, tendentious notion of the concept of debate.  Running for office much?

[Bob Ness]

15 hours ago, Jim Harwood said:

According to sources LBJ didn't even want to run for President in 1964. He wanted to hold the office together until the 1964 election was decided and then he would leave the spoils for the winner. He came under tremendous pressure  to run in 1964 and of course he resigned in 1968. 

LBJ also didn't believe in the single bullet theory, didn't think going to war in Vietnam was a good idea, and didn't believe the Gulf of Tonkin story or the intelligence reports. Later after leaving office he confided during an interview that he believed we were "running a damn Murder Inc. in the Caribbean " . It wasn't long after that interview that LBJ departed this world.

You're suggesting the decisions he made were all involuntary? Wasn't it LBJ (I don't remember) who installed the taping system in the office? If it were me, and I knew I was being recorded for posterity, I don't think I'd be saying "hey, we sure did a great job of (insert devious actions/plot here) didn't we?"

I'm not saying he's guilty of anything, I just don't view LBJ as a lilly-white rose, Saintly, virtuous and blown about by events of his day. He escalated the war, beat down many an opponent and essentially hoisted himself on his own pitard. Here he is lying to the American mothers and father's of boys who will go to be maimed and die (not to mention millions of SE Asians)for something you claim he knew was untrue:

He was certainly capable of a great many things.