Mark Knight

You are correct. June had birthright citizenship because she was the daughter of a citizen who met the criteria you cited.

So it comes out that DVP believes that John and Nellie Connally were both being untruthful in their testimony. Because if they were being truthful, that would blow the SBT out of the water. So that leaves us with only one conclusion.

Ben, I read a report either last night of this morning that stated that Russia is sending new conscripts to the front in Ukraine with ZERO TRAINING: Russia-Ukraine war: Russian conscripts being sent straight to front, Kyiv says; UK sanctions Russians linked to ‘sham referendums’ – as it happened | Russia | The Guardian Since you're the chief Putin apologist on this forum, please explain to me how this decision by Putin is Biden's fault. As is apparently everything to do with that war, in YOUR world.

Frame 226 - frame 190 = 36 frames. At 18 frames per second, that's two seconds to react. It's not as if Jackie was anticipating a gunshot at ANY time [as opposed to those of us viewing the film]. Taking TWO WHOLE SECONDS to react to an unexpected gunshot is NOT an unreasonable amount of time. Especially if Jackie had been facing the crowd on the LEFT side of the limo prior to the shot. DVP, I think you're making a TWO-SECOND reaction time out to be a bigger deal than it actually was. In fact, TWO SECONDS is TOTALLY reasonable when you have no idea what just happened [again, unlike those of us viewing the film, who KNOW what to expect]. I believe that a shot at frame 190, and s reaction two seconds later, isn't as ridiculous as you wish to make it.

"Well now, they call me deBrueys..." [think J.J. Cale via Lynyrd Skynyrd for this one.]

Ben, Keep telling yourself that no one who breached the Capitol on January 6 was armed. It isn't true, but keep telling yourself that, if you find it comforting. https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1573755145032126466?s=20&t=8hi4OM3Ro1Ac4OdCmkyeng I believe a .40 caliber handgun is considered a firearm... maybe not in YOUR mind, but to the rest of the world it is.

I believe you nailed it, Kirk. And Ben is, IMHO, one of the duped. What you call the Corporate State and what I call the oligarchy are, I believe, one and the same. If there's a "Deep State," that's where it lies [the word "lies" having a double meaning in this context].

OH, and the "M$M," as you refer to them. My news sources are The Associated Press, Reuters, and Axios, an online news aggregator. If you look at any chart on alleged media bias, these are three of the most neutral news sources available. I don't watch [or trust] CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, OAN, or any of those who lean too far left or right. I studied journalism in college. I know good journalism when I see it. The vast majority of the mass media ain't it. So you can kindly take your presuppositions about where I get my information and place them in a rather indelicate bodily orifice. But do it kindly; I'd rather that you not hurt yourself. I simply want your presuppositions to be found near material of similar composition. Oh, and have a nice day.

My opinion on the "Deep State" in the US is that it's the oligarchy. It was in JFK's day, and it still is. Trump didn't upset the "Deep State;" he was one of them. But when he lost the 2020 election, he was of no further use to them. When he was in office, they overlooked Trump's erratic style and his own grifting because he wasn't interfering with THEIR grifting. Now that Trump is out of office, and can no longer help them grift, they're leaving him twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, to face the consequences of HIS grift alone. And my view is that the MAGA Republicans would rather tear the whole damn country down than work in good faith to build America up. January 6th was just a small sample of what they truly wanted [and still want] to do to America. They want to become the American Taliban, forcing a particular religious point of view on the whole nation. They want to ban books. And if the manager of my local Senior Citizen Center is an example [and I believe he is], they want to jail or kill anyone who doesn't wear a MAGA hat and fly a TRUMP flag. Their bloodlust at wanting to "HANG MIKE PENCE!" and shoot Nancy Pelosi, AOC [they likely don't even know her name] and Schumer was just a preview of what they want for everyone who doesn't conform to their ideas. And their justification? "Freedom, baby!" But just THEIRS; no one else's freedom matters.

Ben, I agree with Kirk. I don't think he's being unfriendly in his approach. He's simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your thinking, as revealed by your posts. It's not unfriendly to point out that your positions have changed as the circumstances in Ukraine have changed. Your ONE point of consistency: whatever Biden does, in your mind, it's wrong. Biden HAS changed his response to the Russian invasion. His position has evolved with the circumstances on the ground there. Now that he's more hawkish, as you advocated early on, you say that's the wrong response. BE HONEST with us AND YOURSELF, Ben: in your eyes, there is NO move that Biden can make regarding Ukraine that will EVER be right. Just come out and admit that simple truth, and you won't feel as though you're being attacked in an uncivil fashion [even though you're not being attacked in an uncivil fashion]. Be honest with yourself. The truth WILL set you free. [Now tell me in what way my comments on this post are uncivil and discourage potential new forum members. I can't wait to hear your justification for such a position, if you are able to justify it at all.]

Since he realizes the inevitability of his arrest and indictment. perhaps he's simply laying the groundwork for an insanity defense.

Last night, Trump indicated to Sean Hannity that as President, he could declassify documents by merely thinking about it. According to federal law, while a president CAN take measures to declassify documents, there are certain procedures which must be followed, especially for matters dealing with national security. ESPECIALLY in cases in which declassification might reveal intelligence sources and/or methods. In the case of the 100 or so docs the FBI collected on August 8 at Mar-a-Lago, there is NO EVIDENCE that Trump followed ANY of the procedures specified by federal law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals [two of the three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals were appointed by Trump] ruled last night that there is no evidence that Trump followed federal law regarding declassification of ANY of the suspect documents. Explain to me, Ben, how this is the "Deep State" attacking Trump...rather than prima facie evidence that Trump failed to follow the law regarding declassification of federal documents. Explain to me WHY the federal law which has applied to EVERY PRESIDENT since the law was written is suddenly null and void regarding Trump. You can explain it to me as if you were explaining it to a jury, or you can explain it to me like you would to a five-year-old child. But PLEASE explain how requiring a President to follow the law is expected of EVERY OTHER President but is suddenly "Deep-State" harassment and persecution when it comes to Donald J. Trump. I'm expecting this to be a very interesting explanation. [I'm making popcorn.]

Yes, Trump said "...when you're President..." Which he hasn't been since noon on January 20th, 2021. Of course, if he contends that he's STILL President, then the Constitution prohibits him from running again in 2024. If the law was actually something he obeyed.

Just so Ben doesn't accuse me of taking the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision "out of context," here's a link to the entire 29-page decision: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-625b-da48-a3e3-e2ff83050000 Check it out; it's a really good read. By a couple of TRUMP-APPOINTED JUDGES, by the way. Yes, i read the entire 29 pages.

Part of the 11th Circuit's ruling regarding the government documents:

Appeals court gives DOJ access to classified documents from Mar-a-Lago (usatoday.com)

Last week the manager at my local Senior Citizens Center went on a couple of tirades. On Tuesday, talking about VP Kamala Harris, he stated, "She needs to be shot right between the eyes." He became agitated just by being shown her photo. The following day, speaking of President Biden, he said, " He needs to be shot." Then he added, "I could take him out at 1.000 yards, and he'd never see it coming." Then he got agitated because the local Democratic Party had set up their headquarters in a building directly across the park from the Senior Center. "Every damn one of 'em in that place should be shot!" he said. Since he's bragged about owning military-style weapons, and he's an ex-Marine, I hope he never snaps. But just in case, I made a report on the FBI online tip line today. Yes, he's super-MAGA. I just hope he doesn't turn vigilante should Trump be arrested. I asked the FBI to leave my name out of any conversations they have with him. And Ben, I don't hear ANY "Donks," as you call them, threatening bodily harm to Trump or to Republicans. Not UNLESS the MAGA crowd decides to attack them.

Ben, your last sentence is one point upon which you and I might find agreement.

I will certainly be in that line.

Ben, I think you're forgetting that it was the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION who made the agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. In fact, Biden left American troops in Afghanistan a month and a half longer than the exit date that Trump had negotiated. Do some research, and then tell me whether I speak the truth or not. I'll wait.

As far as Wes Frazier goes, we have to recognize a couple of facts. His story has been consistent all along, and I trust that he's telling the truth about not CONSCIOUSLY seeing Oswald on the TSBD steps. The possibility exists that when Frazier was on the steps, he was more conscious of the people standing in front of him than the people standing to the side of him. Frazier doesn't say that Oswald was never on the steps. He states the truth, that he doesn't remember seeing Oswald there. Think back to any situation when you were in a group of people viewing a major event. Since the event itself occupies the major portion of your memory, can you recall EVERY person standing near you? Are you SURE? I've witnessed incidents myself in which, when I start to name the people standing near me whom I knew, I leave someone out. WHY? Because I simply can't remember seeing them there. And I think this is what Frazier is saying, simply that he doesn't remember seeing Oswald there. So Frazier is simply being honest when he says he didn't see Oswald on the steps. IF -- big if -- Prayer Person/Prayer Man IS eventually confirmed to have been Oswald, Frazier's words are still true: he didn't [CONSCIOUSLY] see Oswald there on the steps. And if PM is NOT Oswald, Frazier still has told the truth.

Ron, this is a chess move. If Trump lies and certifies that he HAS surrendered all documents, he can be tried for perjury. If he tells the truth and says he has NOT returned all the documents, then he is admitting he is guilty of violating the Espionage Act. If he pleads the Fifth Amendment, it looks the same as an admission of guilt, because he would be saying that telling the truth would incriminate him. Checkmate.

Ben, re-read the beginning of the thread. It explains the "janitor" reference. Of course, Oswald wasn't the janitor. Everyone knows that...NOW. Re-read the beginning of the thread to understand what the "janitor" reference was about. And of course, the failure to search for the Nov. 20 records is suspicious. On that part, you have a gift at explaining the obvious.

What, exactly, is "witness tampering" supposed to look like?

When Marina came to the US with Lee Oswald in 1962, she was not a US citizen. As I understand the citizenship procedure, she would have been issued a "green card" [or similar document] and could ONLY apply for citizenship after 3 years' residence in the US. A couple of questions come to mind here. 1.) As a noncitizen, wouldn't she have been required to report EVERY address change to the Immigration Service? 2.) Once Lee Oswald was dead, she was simply a Soviet citizen in the US, and no longer the wife of an American citizen. Would that have affected her residency status with the Immigration Service? Would that have led to SS, FBI, and DPD investigators to "suggest" [threaten] that deportation was an option if Marina failed to cooperate, i.e., tell them what they wanted to hear? In 1963, Miranda rights were 3 years away. And old "cop shows" illustrate how cops would bend the rules to pressure potential witnesses/defendants to tell them what they wanted to hear [witness the "confession" that the DPD tried to force on Wes Frazier]. So if Marina had NOT informed Immigration about changes of address, that might have provided cops with leverage, real or imagined, to have her tell them the story they wanted to hear. Anyone have any information regarding Marina and the Immigration officials? I don't recall previously seeing any investigation into this area.