Was the Assassination of President Kennedy “Legal?

[Shanet Clark]

Yes, I believe George Herbert Walker was Bush I's maternal grandfather. Jim's statement probably would make more sense if it read "Draper joined what would become the Bush team" although the Bushes from Ohio had built up their industrial interests and links to Harriman/Union Pacific by this time. I am not too familiar with the generations previous to Senator Prescott Bush, but they were wealthy industrialists back to the 1880s, I believe. By 1900 there was a Harriman/Bush link. ((not much help, we'll have to look it up))

John, further comment on the above:

Individuals with no personal motives? They may have just been following orders.

You apparently are growing more convinced with the Haley/Barr McClellan thesis, where #2 eliminates #1 to become #1.

I don't think that happened, because #3, #4, #5 and #6 wouldn't go along with such a personal and naked power grab.

My thesis is that MI/CIA ranking officials (Maxwell Taylor, McCone, McCloy, Dulles) went to #3 (treasury secretary Dillon) and described Kennedy's "incapacity, " and demanded a loss of security clearance eligibility, and this logically became the rationale for removal. It was based on intelligence on JFK's personal behavior. Marshall Carter, head of NSA, may have gone along.

In this way, #2 (Johnson) benefitted but did not initiate, he was handed the sanction as a 'fait accompli' by his Joint Chief and Cabinet leader. (taylor and c.d.dillon) A large and reciprocally compromising effort stemmed from this, where many different elements were employed with the knowledge that the FBI and other authorities would not prosecute them. In other words #3 (dillon) #4 (taylor) #5 (McCone) #6 (lovett) #7 (anderson) #8 (hoover) protected #2 (johnson)

when #1 was stripped of his clearances and suffered executive sanction.

I never would have come to this conclusion without reading the 25th amendment, which seems to authorize just such an effort and say

"its okay, but next time we'll do it this way, ie, no blood"

Shanet:

I still don't get Jim Roots' statement that:

"William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was

hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was

put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.

We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking

Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan."

Is George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather?  What "Bush team" existed in 1927?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet:

Can you help out with the above question.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Carroll]

My thesis is that MI/CIA ranking officials (Maxwell Taylor, McCone, McCloy, Dulles) went to #3 (treasury secretary Dillon) and described Kennedy's "incapacity, " and demanded a loss of security clearance eligibility, and this logically became the rationale for removal.  It was based on intelligence on JFK's personal behavior.  Marshall Carter, head of NSA, may have gone along.

In this way, #2 (Johnson) benefitted but did not initiate, he was handed the sanction as a 'fait accompli' by his Joint Chief and Cabinet leader....

I never would have come to this conclusion without reading the 25th amendment, which seems to authorize just such an effort and say

"its okay, but next time we'll do it this way, ie, no blood"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that this "incapacity" framework goes a long way to explain how very high level men who, I'm sure, considered themselves honorable and patriotic, might have rationalized such a sanction to themselves.

Tim

[Shanet Clark]

I believe that this "incapacity" framework goes a long way to explain how very high level men who, I'm sure, considered themselves honorable and patriotic, might have rationalized such a sanction to themselves. RE tim carroll/

Thanks for the supporting angle. This rationalization wasn't enough exculpation for the principals (as long as it was classified, top secret indictment and only another deniable motivation).

The 25th amendment, due to its text and timing, explains, sheds light, exonerates and implicates these otherwise honorable and patriotic men mentioned in the Warren Commission and subsequent House investigations.

It is no light thing to charge the head of the Joint Chiefs or the Deputy Director of the CIA, or the Vice-Presidents and Treasury Secretaries of 1959-1969 with nefarious malfeasance and criminal conspiracy.

Unfitness, chronic incapacity for office, these are the quiet charges used to undermine an administration and rationalize a change in the 1963 commander in chief. The frenzy for taping, and extortion, and damaging compromising information (In God's Name 1979) defined the period from 1954 to 1974. The aspects of military coup surrounding Edwin Walker, the 1963 Secret Service and Maxwell Taylor tend to offer a super-ordinate cause, above the CIA activities in Cuba and the South.

The act of sending a nominal ABORT TEAM to observe and show some self- protecting foreknowledge, and non-cooperation, on the part of the CIA

--This may be the best way of understanding Tosh's evidence concerning

WM HARVEY and TRACY BARNES in the November 1963 JM/WAVE observation team out of the CIA. Gerald Ford's "slip" strongly supports this view.

And you can bet an arlington coup could cover up its autopsy at Bethesda.

Was Lyndon Johnson, Justice Warren and the authors of the 25th amendment covering up a military coup d'etat ?

[Shanet Clark]

The full text of the twenty fifth amandment is now posted

on the regular forum threads.

While I believe John Simkins and James Richards have isolated

the basic structure of the "Tactical" aspects of 11/22/63;

I believe this theory, broad in scope, explains the larger "STRATEGIC" aspects.

The incapacity pretext may have been based on any number of things,

but please think to yourself what individuals like Maxwell Taylor, Edwin Walker and

James jesus Angleton would have thought of the tapes and photos of JFK,

his escapapdes and exploits....in the language of the day, executive action,

executive sanction, clearance violation, incapacity, unfit for duty....

were these the pretexts for the joint agency effort and cover-up?????

[David A. Bodner]

Hi Shanet –

I’m pretty new to this group, and I’ve been doing a lot of catch up on various threads.

First of all, let me compliment you on a very well written piece that you started off this topic with. It was chilling to read and brought up things I had not considered with respect to the assassination. If you do not write in other venues I would urge you to do so; you have a natural talent for clear exposition.

I had never thought of the 25th Amendment in connection with the assassination, except that the JFK assassination obviously highlighted a need for making sure the Constitution took into account the human frailties of the Presidency.

The position you take revolves around how we all think about ex post facto.

I believe I am correct in saying that, in general, legal rulings in regard to ex post facto go in favor of the individual rather than to the state.

So, when the 25th Amendment talks about removal of the President for cause, by those authorized by it to do so, I assume that the individuals involved on an ex post facto basis would be protected by the positive aspects of ex post facto.

However, the 25th does not mention execution (state murder) as a means of removal, but I suppose it could indeed be construed to imply “by ANY means necessary.” And since there was no Federal Statute at the time about assassinating Presidents that would be in their favor also.

Federal Statute on murder? But Texas surely would have had laws proscribing murder in 1963. How would a general Federal Law, especially (even Positive) ex post facto protect the “guilty” from Texas law? That’s really stretching the positive side of ex post facto.

To sum up, I think more discussion on ex post facto would be informative. I think your position and theory is fascinating but I need more reason to swallow it.

Somewhere here I think 2039 came up as a revelation date? And I think I do understand that, in as much as Oswald and I share a birth year: 1939.

Regards,

Dave Bodner

[Shanet Clark]

Thank you to Dave Bodner for the feedback.

Ex Poste Facto is often invoked, especially in issues of legitimacy, transition and sovereignty. In this case the 25th came in while Johnson was still in power, although he had been elected in his own right in 1964. The executives who made up the Cabinet and Joint Chiefs, the executives in the agencies gained ascendance somewhere along the line. Secretaries of the Navy, as John Simkin shows, had powerful ambitions and ruthless methods. Executive chiefs of the NSA 68 agencies had virtually limitless prerogatives. Culturally the concept of "EXECUTIVE ACTION or EXECUTIVE SANCTION were very much in the Air, as it were: OO7 James Bond was licensed to kill, the spy who came in from the cold was murdered, a few heads of state were murdered in the 1950's and 1960's, and a certain propaganda effort culminating in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL and EXECUTIVE ACTION really brought the issue to consciousness.

Recent LANCER postings point to a continued effort to brand John F. Kennedy a traitor, and guilty of treason. It is seriously put forth by some that JFK was a communist agent, and the recent postings on these forums show an intense interest on the NAVY and SEALS to impugn John Kennedy's medical record. The Point of view of these postings is that of the conspirators, the rage and hatred of those who would have stripped a sitting president of his security clearances and taken his life. While I have outlined medical and pharmacological pretexts for EXECUTIVE ACTION under the joint agencies, I now see that the TREASON charge, synonymous with the outrageous COMMUNIST charge, will be and has been the principle declarative position of the "MICC"

The militant reactionaries in positions of power who assented to his assassination by a joint agency effort saw JFK as a Soviet Spy, and immorally lax security risk who had sex with Iron Curtain spies, a man given to injections of amphetamines and weekends with mistresses and psychedelics. Just imagine what NSA chief MARSHALL CARTER, NAVY CHIEF OF STAFF ADMIRAL LEMNITZER, ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF JOINT CHIEF MAXWELL TAYLOR, TREASURY SECRETARY C.D. DILLON and the executives MCCONE HELMS and KARAMESSINES had in their files about John Kennedy.....how can anyone doubt that forces within the government used pretexts and rationalizations to remove him?

[Peter McGuire]

[qoute]I believe that this "incapacity" framework goes a long way to explain how very high level men who, I'm sure, considered themselves honorable and patriotic, might have rationalized such a sanction to themselves. RE tim carroll/ [/qoute]

Thanks for the supporting angle. This rationalization wasn't enough exculpation for the principals (as long as it was classified, top secret indictment and only another deniable motivation).

The 25th amendment, due to its text and timing, explains, sheds light, exonerates and implicates these otherwise honorable and patriotic men mentioned in the Warren Commission and subsequent House investigations.

It is no light thing to charge the head of the Joint Chiefs or the Deputy Director of the CIA, or the Vice-Presidents and Treasury Secretaries of 1959-1969 with nefarious malfeasance and criminal conspiracy.

Unfitness, chronic incapacity for office, these are the quiet charges used to undermine an administration and rationalize a change in the 1963 commander in chief. The frenzy for taping, and extortion, and damaging compromising information (In God's Name 1979) defined the period from 1954 to 1974. The aspects of military coup surrounding Edwin Walker, the 1963 Secret Service and Maxwell Taylor tend to offer a super-ordinate cause, above the CIA activities in Cuba and the South.

The act of sending a nominal ABORT TEAM to observe and show some self- protecting foreknowledge, and non-cooperation, on the part of the CIA

--This may be the best way of understanding Tosh's evidence concerning

WM HARVEY and TRACY BARNES in the November 1963 JM/WAVE observation team out of the CIA. Gerald Ford's "slip" strongly supports this view.

And you can bet an arlington coup could cover up its autopsy at Bethesda.

Was Lyndon Johnson, Justice Warren and the authors of the 25th amendment covering up a military coup d'etat ?

Shanet:

Just read through this thread and as we approach the 22nd of November this year, I think it is time to look at the big picture in the way you have. As quoted in this post, honorable and patriotic men and women are probably thinking the same thing now, as they did in 1963 , that they are "doing the right thing" by continuing the cover up. Clearly, the Secret Service team protecting Kennedy that day were just following orders and did not see themselves as traitors. In fact, I have never seen men with lack of expressions on their face and the ability just to sit or stand there through all the shots, like these men. Finally, by a State sponsored Coup D Etat, don't you mean they will be calling it Regicide a thousand years from now, like I am calling it in 2006.

I thought the painting of the Generals in the autopsy room playing cards was a little too graphic.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Peter McGuire

[Thomas Graves]

Shanet:

A fellow Oglesbyan!

I still don't get Jim Roots' statement that:

"William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was

hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was

put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.

We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking

Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan."

Is George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather? What "Bush team" existed in 1927?

Shanet: I appreciate the framework of the 25th Amendment as part of a broader executive sanction provision, allowing more readily for the removal from office of presidents who become incapacitated or unfit (or unmanageable) without having to blow their brains out in public.

Tim

Or even in private.

--Tommy

(emphasis added)

[Len Colby]

Shanet posted is his analysis of the 25th Amendment elsewhere on the forum and was completely erroneous, The following is from a reply I made on the other threads. He never addressed the questions I put to him, The part of the amendment he was referring to, section 4, reads as follows [my comments in brackets]:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [i.e. – the full cabinet] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide [Congress has never designated such a body], transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.


Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

It should be pointed out that the VP and a majority of the members of the cabinet would have to declare that the president was incapacitated. It is extremely unlikely that they would do so in a situation when the president wasn't legitimately incapacitated for several reasons:

1) They were chosen by the president and presumably were people he confided in. Although some VPs were chosen as part of marriages of convenience this is not the case of the cabinet members. At the time the amendment was ratified there were 12 cabinet members, the plotters would need 7 of them to sign the declaration.

2) For a conspiracy to work the group carrying it out has to trust each other and have common interests. The only common link among the cabinet members is that they were appointed by and serve under the president you think they might plot to depose. The VP would have an obvious motive, what would be in it for the cabinet members who would risk life imprisonment or political ruin for doing so?

3) Although it's no guarantee that no shady characters become cabinet members that they have to be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate and have there live investigated by the press and president's advisors makes this unlikely and the chances that 50% + 1 of them would be coup plotters is hard to imagine.



Also such a plot wouldn't work for other reasons:

1) All the president would have to do to return to office is to sign a declaration that he (or she) wasn't incapacitated. This is I believe the biggest hole in your "theory". In a situation where the VP and cabinet disputed the president's claim that he wasn't incapacitated the question would be settled by congress and a 2/3 vote by both houses would be necessary to keep the president from returning to power.

2) In the extremely unlikely situation that the VP and cabinet tried to remove an able president, such a coup is unlikely to be accepted by the American public. Although Clinton committed perjury many congressmen and senators who voted for his removal were hurt politically by this vote, although FDR and his New Deal were very popular his attempt to "pack the (Supreme) court" was a political disaster. The situation would not be sustainable.


So the plotters would have to actually incapacitate the president to the point that congress and the American people would agree he (or she) truly wasn't "able to discharge the powers and duties of his office". They would have drug/poison him either to induce a permanent coma or leave him crazy (I don't know if such a drug exists). But any group capable of and willing to do that would probably just kill him it would be easier and less risky. Easier, less risky and more effective, a VP who succeeded a dead president would become president in his own right and thus have much more of a mandate than an 'acting president'; this would be especially true if the president was known to have been assassinated. JFK's 'martyrdom' helped LBJ pass legislation and get reelected. 4 VP's suceeded dead president's in the 20th century (TR, Coolidge, Truman and LBJ) all four were elected president in the next election. (None of the 19th century sucessors ran for pesident)

The 25th amendment was introduced, passed and ratified while LBJ was president but that proves little. The amendment was introduced by Birch Bayh. Liberal Bayh saved Ted Kennedy's life in a 1964 plane crash and was the also the principal framer of the 26th amendment (lowering the voting age to 18), the ERA (the Equal Rights Amendment) and Title IX (prohibiting sexual discrimination in sports and education). It was passed by a two-thirds (at least) majority in both houses of congress and both houses of the legislatures of (at least) three quarters of the states. Were the thousands of legislators across the country who voted to pass and ratify the amendment "in on" the conspiracy?

"The rules for a Presidential succession" weren't "radically re-written". The main focus of the amendment was to provide for the nomination of a vice-president when there was a vacancy. The part of the of the amendment you object to was ratified because it was necessary, on at least six previous occasions the president was incapacitated for extended periods of time and there was no mechanism to declare an acting president leaving the country effectively leaderless.

1841 – William Henry Harrison caught pneumonia during his inauguration speech he was never well enough to serve as president and died 32 later.

1850 – Zachary Taylor fell ill after consuming cherries and milk on July 4 and succumbed to cholera (or gastroenteritis depending on who you believe). He lay incapacitated for 5 days before dying.

1881 – William Garfield was shot July 2 but he did not die until September 19, 80 days later.

1901 – William McKinnley was shot September 6 but only died September 14.

1920 – 1 - Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke on October 2, 1919 leaving him incapacitated this was hidden from the American public and his VP, it is believed his wife and close advisors were in charge until William Harding succeeded him on March 4, 1921(five months later).

1923 – Harding died August 2 after being ill for several days.

By the 1960's the US was enmeshed in a "cold war" with the Soviet Bloc especially after the Cuban Missile crisis it was obvious that extended periods without an acting president could be perilous, Soviet hard liners had recently forced Khrushchev from power. Theoretically a president could lapse into a coma on the day of his inauguration and be kept alive indefinitely on life support. Without the 25th amendment the country would be without an acting president until the inauguration of his successor 4 years later.

I don't follow your analysis that the 25th amendment some how is evidence of LBJ, Hoover and Dillion et. al.'s guilt. They might well have been the culprits but they had little to do with the amendment and it is in no way indicative of their guilt. JFK was already dead the amendment was not of use to them.

How exactly did the amendment "give cover to the events of November, 1963". You indicated, as much as I could follow you that you thought some plot to incapacitate JFK existed, do you have any evidence in support of this theory?

I have seen similar interpretations of section four of the amendment, mostly on sites that froth on about the Illuminati and Area 51. What I haven't seen is a historian, political scientist or legal scholar give the idea credit and for good reason, it's obviously wrong to anybody who knows what they are talking about.


I am also curious about your claim that you were threatened with legal action over 25th Amendment/ JFK Assassination essay above, who threatened to sue you most (if not all) the people you cited had died. Wasn't it Gratz who threatened to sue you after you accused him of involvement in the attempt on Wallace?[/size]


Len

[Robin Haines]

I am the author of "Probable Cause, Re-Thinking The JFK Plot". It seems everyone who visits this websites really hates me. However, in my book I present a case for JFK's removal from office. I explain why it was probably done legally, at least as legally as possible according to the laws as they existed in 1963.

The criminal conspiracy theorists are extremely frustrated over the fact that they can't get at any of these people who are linked to this assassination through the legal system. They do not understand how how the cover works, and why it still prevails.

They are shielded from prosecution under Government Sponsored Targeted Killing Statutes, and a "Blanket Cover", that is deep,thick and wide.

There is evidence of JFK's involvement in this. Conspiracy theorists and the conspiracy buffs are in a state of denial when I try to convince them that JFK was also involved and worked together with these people.

When I confront them with the evidence of JFK's involvement their minds are closed shut.

I admit that I made some reckless statements in some of my earlier works. People who read my book laughed when I said, "It was an Intelligence Deception designed to look like a political assassination". What I meant by that is it is going to be a legitimate, Government Sponsored Targeted Killing that was deliberately staged to appear to be a criminal,politically motivated assassination at the time.

I did say that "Nobody murdered this President". That was an irresponsible statement. I believe I removed it from my updated version of my book that I did over again in 2013 and 2014. However, I believe that he signed Executive Orders, and that his death will be a Targeted Killing, legally rather than a homicide in the end.

[Robin Haines]

I am sorry I posted twice. I didn't think it posted so I clicked on post again.