Mark Knight

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.

When they tell you who they are... believe them.

The agenda from the right starts with vouchers, to siphon students and money from public schools to private schools. Once their goal is met and public schools are closed, then the states "turn off the tap" for vouchers... likely citing a state "fiscal crisis." THEN who goes to school and who doesn't? Rich kids go to school. Poor children are left without education. You say TODAY'S educational system is "classist?" Just wait until we revert to a new feudal system. And oligarchs will have won, at least until the next uprising with torches and pitchforks.

Amen. The FBI and the CIA in the '60s... if you lived through that era, you knew not to trust anything they said. If you were a male with long hair and a beard, you were a target no matter what your politics. I had long hair and a beard in the '60s and '70s. Still have the beard to this day. But the turn toward fascism under Nixon was NOTHING in comparison to the Trump-led cultists. The oligarchy will financially support them because keeping the people divided sells merch. Of course, selling nuclear secrets is a different matter...but oligarchs also finance wars, so they get paid if it all turns violent.

I got the chance in the Indiana Primary election. In case you've forgotten, Bernie WON the Indiana Primary in 2016.

I'm sorry to hear this. As a former member of the John Birch Society, he gave a unique perspective on Guy Gabaldon and others with whom he was in close contact back in the day.

Sen. Graham says if Trump is indicted, there will be 'riots in the street' | Fox News Again, it's NOT the left that is threatening violence...contrary to what Ben has claimed. The left has merely acknowledged that the right is threatening violence, should Trump get indicted. That's a HUGE difference. If you say you're going to punch me in the nose if something occurs, and then I tell someone about your threat, how do I become the one advocating violence? I don't. The left is merely talking about the violence that the MAGA supporters are threatening. That does NOT equate to the left advocating violence...unless you're quite twisted.

Ben apparently doesn't.

I have no theory on how the revolver in the sack got to the curb. I just find its presence there illogical. It may have been discarded by Crafard and/or Ruby. It may have been left there by someone else. There is no way to determine, short of eyewitness testimony. Which doesn't exist. For all we know, the revolver in the sack may have been connected to a different crime. Perhaps an armed robbery. But its disappearance once in DPD custody is as mysterious as its appearance on the day after Tippit's murder [which may have been coincidental].

You're putting words in my mouth. STOP IT. I did NOT say that this missing revolver was used in a murder. I simply said it was illogical for it to be discarded in a bag on a curb because in 1963 it was easy to sell or pawn a handgun for cash. I made NO mention of it being used in a murder. Just because someone points out that it is illogical to throw away an item with obvious cash value, that does NOT indicate that I subscribe 100% to anyone's theory as to WHY it was disposed of in this illogical way. It's also illogical that such a weapon, once in police custody, would disappear without some sort of paper trail. But it did, and one must start asking why.

“People should just, just be ready to get out on the streets with pitchforks and torches with how low the liberal media has become.” —Tim Michels, GOP candidate for WI governor. That doesn't sound to me like it's the LEFT that is threatening violence.

Bill, consider one other idea: Why would someone discard a perfectly good concealable revolver, rather than selling or pawning it? Sales between individuals weren't tracked in 1963. So this discarded revolver wasn't redeemed in some way for cash, and it begs the question: WHY NOT?

Ben, my point about your "research" is in reference to your WC-like tendency to ignore evidence that conflicts with your foregone conclusions. I think we BOTH agree that a "Deep State" exists. But I see no evidence that it is constrained by a particular political ideology; rather, it is, and always has been, part of a not-completely-monolithic oligarchy. The "golden rule," as in, "those who possess the gold make the rules." Trump was their "useful idiot" until his supporters, with his encouragement, attacked the US Capital building. From that point forward, Trump was no longer useful to them, and they would no longer provide cover for him and his minions. It's exactly what happened to Nixon when the oligarchy decided he was no longer useful to them. After Nixon was replaced by the malleable Gerald Ford, the oligarchy managed to use a couple of intentionally unsuccessful assassination attempts to make sure he got the message. But the message wasn't overtly political. It was to remind Ford to keep turning a blind eye to how the oligarchy was corrupting the system to their financial benefit. It's seldom about politics or ideology. It's ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS about the money.

Trump calls Democrats "Fascists" in January, 2020 And notice the military personnel in the background. Ben, you should be a better researcher than what I've seen on this thread.

Other Presidents have made speeches with American troops in the background. I saw a photo just today of former President George W. Bush speaking from an aircraft carrier [whether it was before or after the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner was unfurled was unclear. Please tell me that you don't recall former President Trump demonizing large portions of our citizens. I'll gladly post the video clips for you. But the only ones I hear threatening war in the streets are Trump supporters like Lindsey Graham, who said that would happen if Trump was to be arrested. I don't hear anyone on the other side threatening to take arms to the streets other than Trump supporters. But I'm living in America, so maybe I'm not close enough to where this is all happening. [That's sarcasm, in case you didn't understand.] On the other hand, if Trump supporters bring a physical battle to my home, I don't intend to put down my arms and surrender to them. If the need arises, I will stand up to vigilante injustice and defend my home. Since Trump is no longer President, he has no right to handle OR POSSESS ANY classified documents. He no longer holds the office that gives him clearance to see them. NO ex-President retains that right once they leave office. And if he [allegedly] declassified them, why are those documents not readily available to the press? It shouldn't take an FOIA lawsuit to obtain unclassified documents. Your excuses for Trump are wearing thin, Ben. Remember, once he was no longer the Chief Executive, executive privilege for him ceased to exist. The "Deep State" isn't "out to get" Trump. They never were. He's one of them, the oligarchy. If anything, the "Deep State" is simply tired of him, and no longer gives a rat's azz about him.

National security is at stake. Who has the documents that were originally in the files? Friends or foes? I think it's time the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg example was put into play...arrest and conviction, followed by swift punishment. WHY? Because as of noon on January 20, 2021, Donald J. Trump's term of office ended. That means from that point forward, he is no longer President, no longer has "executive privilege," and no longer has THE NECESSARY SECURITY CLEARANCE TO VIEW SUCH DOCUMENTS...MUCH LESS POSSESS THEM. Reality Winner got a 5-year sentence for possessing ONE such document. Trump had HOW MANY such documents? Ben, that's NOT "Deep State" stuff. That's ESPIONAGE ACT violation stuff.

in what bizarro world is this NOT witness tampering ? [Ben's world, maybe?]

I will once again say that this "Deep State" is the oligarchy. Their agenda isn't so much political as it is financial. Communism, as we've seen, isn't the answer; there is a "Deep State" fed by corruption in EVERY communist government. BUT it's apparent that UNRESTRICTED capitalism also feeds a "Deep State" here in the US, in which cash-heavy corporate interests BUY legislators and judges, who will ALWAYS legislate and rule in favor of the oligarchy. And Trump isn't FIGHTING the "Deep State;" he's a PART of it. When he rails against a "Deep State," he's actually railing against truth, justice, and accountability. 1984 IS HERE. When Trump says it's a lie, it's TRUE. When Trump says something is unfair, it's JUST. The man is, I'm convinced, incapable of telling the truth. The "Deep State" isn't against him; rather, holding him accountable is actually acting AGAINST the "Deep State." Trump is p*ssing on your leg and telling you it's raining. And Ben is opening his umbrella.

Ben, You just totally set me off. The VA? My son was a normal twentysomething when his Army Reserve unit was sent to Iraq. He came home from Iraq with a serious problem that he started self-medicating with alcohol. THANKS to the VA, he is now nearly a year SOBER. They facilitated his recovery status. The GI Bill education benefits has him current taking college classes, he has a job, he and his girlfriend have reconciled, and he's even a volunteer coach in an adult softball league. I will NOT agree with you that the VA is something that needs to be abolished. Our leaders send our young abroad to fight wars in the name of our nation. When they come home broken either in body or in mind, we have an OBLIGATION as a nation to do our best to make them whole once again. And the VA is our tool for doing this. That's not a Republican position. That's not a Democrat position. That's my position as an AMERICAN. Any thoughts you have to the contrary are invalid, in MY world.

UNLESS the curtain rods in Oswald's room were damaged...and he didn't want to be charged for a replacement by his landlady when he left. When I was renting back when i was married with two small kids, whenever I was preparing to move, I'd take the time and effort to repair or replace anything that might've come out of my damage deposit had I left it as it was. [Sometimes I replaced items that were damaged when I moved in, just to get that deposit back.]

My ex-wife's niece, a nurse, was a serial killer in Texas. Most of her murders initially went undetected. Angel of Death – Texas Monthly

Remember, those actuarial tables are AVERAGES. Some die sooner, some die later. My dad died from heart problems at age 61 in 1991. He was neither a smoker nor a drinker. So those actuarial charts don't predict; they simply average the numbers. At this point I'm nearly 7 years past my dad's terminal age. And I smoked until 1998, and I drink.

That's some very interesting information, Greg. Yes, it's hearsay, but it's still QUITE interesting. And to me, it's NOT shocking.

Not to mention that VP Mike Pence was suspicious enough of the SS to NOT get into a SS-driven vehicle to be driven away from the Capitol to a location that wasn't disclosed to him. And YES, I DO think that Pence had reason to not trust the SS, after it came out that on January 5, Senator Chuck Grassley stated that HE would be presiding over the certification of the Electoral Votes, since PENCE WOULDN'T BE PRESENT FOR THE PROCEDURE. Unless Grassley was in on the plot, how would he have known that there was a plan for Pence to be absent? It certainly wasn't PENCE'S plan to be absent. But apparently SOMEONE planned for Pence to not be there. THAT would circumvent the procedure outlined in the Constitution. And Grassley was AWARE of that. How many MORE were in on the plot? Pence was so certain that he'd be put on a plane and flown to a distant but undisclosed location that he REFUSED to get into the car with the SS agents. But Ben still thinks the SS, or at least rogue SS agents, weren't part of the coup attempt. Ben, BECAUSE of the JFK assassination and its aftermath, I have problems putting my full trust in the SS.

Chris Davidson hasn't responded as to whether he would accept the position. His name has been placed in nomination by several forum members. Sandy Larsen has indicated to the administrators that he would accept the position if offered. I'm fine with either one.