James DiEugenio

Bob, this is not in Italian, but you may have to get behind a pay wall to read it. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage The NY times just confirmed what you were dissing about Mr. P. The girl was an undercover FBI informant working for Stefan Halper, who himself was a longtime FBI asset. (See The Intercept.)

My discussion of JFK, Nasser and Israel begins at about the 24 minute mark, but I deal with some other interesting topics before that. http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black937a.mp3 BTW, isn't it something how far ahead K and K is on things, in addition to this in relation to the above linked article, by Anthony, there was the death of McCord.

Thanks so much Rob. I have read a lot of books on both JFK and RFK, but the Schmitt book is really unique.

If you buy the MSM version of Watergate, reading Secret Agenda is, like taking a magic carpet ride. Its amazing what Bradlee and Woodward and that country bumpkin Sam Ervin did.

MIke: Why is this not in the other thread if its about Barr? Why open up another thread that is not related to JFK? What's next Barry Seal and Ferrie? Please. Place this where it belongs.

Nice quote by Thompson. But I also think there is another factor. We are supposed to believe that for about fifty years after 1963, 99 per cent of all historians somehow missed all of this. I don't buy it. How could you miss something as big and important as Congo? I remember that as a kid. IMO, this is part of the MSM game that is played. What you do is you smear people like Schlesinger as being some kind of court stenographer, and then you pen these bad books that hide everything important about JFK, or discount it. I know since I fell for that. I actually used the Herbert Parmet book for my first edition of Destiny Betrayed. Today I do not even have that book. Its worthless, just like Dallek's books are worthless. BTW, it is happening with RFK too. Just take a look at that piece of rubbish by Larry Tye. (If you want to read a really good book on RFK take a look at President of the Other America by a guy named Schmitt. In fact, better idea, buy it right now https://www.amazon.com/President-Other-America-Kennedy-Politics/dp/1558499040. I could have never written my four part series on the Kennedys and civil rights without that book.) Therefore, what I think the message is is that if one would excavate each aspect of his presidency, one would see what the true facts about them are.Like what Don Gibson did with Battling Wall Street on economics. Once you do that you find out they are not what the MSM says they are. I mean, hacks and suck ups like Larry Sabato and Nick Bryant and Jeff Greenfield say that JFK was late to civil rights. Complete and utter BS. Kennedy endorsed Brown vs Board as a senator! Twice. Once was in Jackson Mississippi. See if you can find that in (WSJ) Mr. Levingston's book on the subject. You will not. All of this disinformation is meant to hide the fact of who he really was. Period. (And by the time of his death, RFK made JFK look like a moderate.) This is how bad the MSM is on this. And its why I say, the facts of who Kennedy really was are more throughly and assiduously concealed that the facts of his murder. For good reason.

Thanks for that article Jim. Yes, and I was aware of this interview Paul. That would be a great threat to start up. Curry had buyer's remorse.

Thanks for this. Especially from that group which is usually anti JFK. The one thing left out if the Nasser background JFK was balancing. I think that is importnat and will talk about it tonight.

No one found this notable? The Hill recently reported that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko stated that he was opening “a probe into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Surprisingly, the report, which focuses on Sytnyk, makes no mention of Leshchenko—or of the December court ruling which determined that both Leshchenko and Sytnyk violated Ukrainian law. MIchael Isikoff was working with those people? The guy who said that the Paula Jones case was the same as the Anita Hill case? And then worked with Jonah Goldberg on the Lewinsky case? The idea of an "anti corruption committee" in Ukraine is an oxymoron.

I am not so sure it is in his book. Does anyone have that book? Can you cite a page number? The reason I doubt it because Don Gibson has it in his bibliography, for his The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up. But he does note use that quote.

Where did Curry say words to the effect, we could never put him in that window with a gun? Is it in his book?

Kennedy was so far ahead of everyone else on this subject that its a little mind boggling. He was trying to use Nasser as an outlet to the moderates in the Middle East in order to avoid the extremes. Which, of course, is all you have there now. He really thought that Foster Dulles made a huge mistake in switching over to Saudi Arabia and against Nasser. In Robert Deryfuss' book, Devil's Eye, he says that Nasser was probably the last guy who you could have formed a comprehensive peace plan with. What surprised me in doing the research for that article is just how opposed to him the Israelis were. When I read that stuff, I began to lose my illusions about the Israeli agenda in the Middle East according to Likud. Likud is the worst thing opposing a peace plan there. BTW, did you know the Mossad created Hamas? Know why? To undermine the PLO.

Tomorrow night on Black Op Radio, I will be discussing my watershed article in garrison magazine. Entitled, "Kennedy Faces the Middle East", it is a review of what Kennedy's foreign policy was in that area. I would be willing to wager no one here even knows he had a foreign policy there. Everyone is obsessed with Cuba and Vietnam. Well he did. And it was really bold and far seeing. He wanted to become friendly with Nasser, who Foster Dulles had dumped since he would not join the Baghdad Pact. Kennedy liked him since he was a secularist, socialist and opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood. You will learn things that the MSM will not touch and the Alternative Media will not either. Especially Amy Goodman and Democracy Never. Kennedy was much more than just an anti colonialist. He was the most far seeing president in foreign policy since FDR. No one has touched him since. Just ask yourself: what other president forced the resignation of Israel's PM? Well, Kennedy did. Its all been one giant suck up since. Which resulted in Golda Meir loading up the jets with atomic missiles during the Yom Kippur war. Which would have not have happened had Kennedy lived.

He sure did not act anywhere near his age. The guy was just so energetic. His debates are really something. He was a take no prisoners types debater.

BTW, if I recall, Belin was an estate lawyer. Liebeler was a corporate lawyer. In over up artist Shenon's pretty much worthless book, he describes how Willens, when the senior lawyers were leaving, hired guys who were just out of law school to do the biographies of Oswald and Ruby. LOL, ROTF. That is kind of important because I recall that Sylvia Meagher wrote in some correspondence back in the sixties that in the summer of 1964, the Commission was in danger of falling apart. They just did not think they could make the BS stick. It was Willens who saved the day. BTW, it was Willens who understood that the WC was not made up of seven Commissioners. It was made up of four: Ford, Dulles, McCloy and the figurehead Warren. He actually wrote that in his diary and Jefferson Morley put it on his site. This confirmed my thesis in my last book, that the Southern Wing--Cooper, Boggs, Russell-- had pretty much dropped out, since they did not buy what the Troika--Ford, Dulles, McCloy--was doing. To the point that Russell wrote a resignation letter, which he did not submit. The early critics misunderstood Russell's poor attendance record. It wasn't because he was not interested. Its because he was too interested and he realized what was going on was a rigged poker game with the cards being dealt from the bottom of the deck. I have always felt that the saga of Russell was an underrated and ignored story. I mean, his assistant, Scobey--who he brought up from Atlanta--later wrote an article which said that Oswald would not have been convicted in a real court of law. And Russell did not buy Marina Oswald at all. If you look at his examination of her--with Boggs and Cooper--down in Dallas near the end of the proceedings, its completely different than the whole staged patty cake examination by the Troika much earlier. In fact, the Troika did not even show up for that later one. Right before that examination, Russell, Boggs and Cooper went to Dealey Plaza. Russell went up to the Sixth Floor with an unloaded rifle to try and simulate the shots. He came back down and told the other two, tongue in cheek: yeah its an easy shot. This is why the Troika did what they did at the last meeting, with the impersonator secretary making no notes. Can't you just see Dulles going home that night, mixing himself a drink, and the telling someone like Angleton what happened: yeah Russell thought he had us but we sandbagged him. And he won't figure it out for years. Then hanging up and muttering to himself as he watches TV, "That Kennedy, he thought he was a god." But when Russell found out what the Troika had done, he was the first Commissioner to denounce the body. Cooper and Boggs then followed suit.

My understanding is that Fox was selling these pics of the autopsy. He sold them to Crouch. Lifton bought them from either Crouch or Fox.

Paul: What Saturday calls are you speaking of?

To make excuses the ineptness of the HRC campaign is, in my view, to place the blame everywhere except where it should be. And that is on Podesta, Mook and HRC. I mean was anyone complaining about voter suppression when Obama won twice? The GOP has been doing this stuff since the 1980's. HRC picked poor campaign managers both times, Penn and Mook. I can excuse it once, but not twice. I mean Obama aced it with Plouffe. He took Penn to school. And the thing is, she did not fire either guy. The other way to look at it is that she was just not a winning candidate. And there is some truth to that. Not a good campaigner or speaker. Unlike her hubby, she had a hard time connecting with people. But to me, the giveaway was in her pick of Kaine as VP. She could have picked Warren or Sanders. And that would have given her a real blast off after the convention, and really helped her in those Rust Belt states. But she didn't. Now, Sanders would have beaten Trump pretty soundly. I think it was by 12 points in the poll I saw taken a week before the election. To me that is pretty good evidence of the fact that out of the first tier candidates--BIden, Warren, Sanders, Clinton--she was the one that Trump could defeat, and for a multitude of reasons, not just those I went through above. The progressive part of the Democratic Party had seen too much of what Clintonism was. And then the stuff about the DNC came out. They were not going to turn out or work for HRC. And unlike Obama, because of her hubby, she could not even convey the illusion of being a real progressive. Why do I use the word illusion? It was Obama who got Tom Perez to run for DNC chair after Ellison was the front runner. This is why I will never vote for Biden. Being in California I am in a safe state so I can vote Green to avoid that if I have to. I hope I don't have to.

Very interesting comment which I agree with. That subject has not been explored enough.

PB: The Republican FBI threw the election for Trump. Are you blind? Did I say this? C'mon Paul. What I am saying is that I think the whole Russia Gate thing is a way of either crippling Trump or impeaching him. As per the 2016 election, we have been over this ad nauseum. I explained at length why I think he won. Once Trump prevailed in N. Carolina and Florida, then HRC had to take the Rust Belt. And that did not hold because her campaign was so terrible on those Rust Belt issues. Plus, Trump visited those states about three times more often than she did. Her arrogant manager Robbie Mook believed the hype and actually was trying to extend into places like Arizona instead of shoring up the base. Trump managed to convince enough people in the Rust Belt that he was a populist, or at least more than she was. Which was not difficult considering her hubby's record on NAFTA, the FCC etc. But Mook even overruled the hubby on that one since Bill wanted her to get in more small salon type settings to connect with people instead of the big media campaign HRC was running. Trump ran a clever campaign, and I give him credit for that. And he did it with much less money and fewer resources. He outclevered not just Mook and HRC but also the MSM. And he tapped into the middle class resentment of the MSM in a way that no one else ever has. And that is one reason they have it in for him on Russia Gate. Meanwhile, who is screaming about his tax plan? His environmental plan? His attempts to cut middle class entitlements? The overall strategy to crowd out the budget so that none of that is sustainable and no social improvements can be made. Pretty soon the only things on the budget will be military spending and interest payments on the debt. Do you hear the media screaming about that Paul? If so, where?

Kirk goes back to Johnson, when I linked to the Intercept with a different writer saying the same thing about Sater being an FBI asset for years on end. Alright, what is your objection to that source? Waiting, waiting, waiting. As per why the GOP establishment was opposed to Trump, well, anyone perceived as being from outside that establishment is always looked upon with an arched eyebrow. I mean there is no doubt there was a "Get Trump out of here" movement. If you deny that, then there is no point in discussing this anymore. IMO, I think another reason was because of the things he said about Putin and Russia, and if you can believe it, way back then, he even spoke of a new deal for the Palestinians. He has since been brought to heel on that. I agree that the 2018 summit with Putin was just nutty in how it was treated by the MSM. Even Jim Fallows, I guy I like and respect, went crazy. IMO, this has been a misfire on Russia Gate, since it has allowed Trump to get away with many other things that should have been violently objected to. I mean, in some ways, his domestic policy is worse than W. Who I think is one of the worst five presidents ever, down there with the likes of Buchanan, Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon. To drag the dead body of Bob Parry into this is really out there Kirk. Parry won two coveted journalistic awards before he passed on. He broke some of the biggest stories of the eighties, including the whole CIA cocaine/ Contra plot and the Oliver North back channel to the Contras. No one did the work he did at the time on Iran Contra, it was so good Newsweek got rid of him. He then continued that fine work with the October Surprise. Bob Parry was the finest journalist of his generation and a hero in that field. One definition of heroism is someone who sacrifices his personal lot in life for an ideal. He did that. That you choose to smear him and uphold the disgraceful, hired guns of the MSM speaks reams about the weakness of your argument.

KG: Exactly Cliff, it was just Trumps sentiments on the 2016 campaign trail that set this whole massive government sting operation aloft. Well, what was Perkins Coie hired to do? Answer: The Steele Dossier What does the Steele Dossier have to do with the FISA Court? The FBI used it on Carter Page. Has Carter Page been indicted for anything? Who gave the dossier to Buzzfeed? Was it people who liked Trump? Good detective work Kirk. Can you now answer my question about all the BFI assets and agents involved? (Sound of crickets in the night.)

You can say that again. LOL. BTW, I had no idea he was that old. He sure did not come off like it. There is a lot of raw information on his web site. His and Gil Jesus' web site are valuable in that regard.

Surprised no one has noted this. https://www.courant.com/obituaries/hc-obituary-thomas-joseph-rossley-20190113-story.html Tom was a really knowledgeable and articulate guy who was not afraid to take on anyone about the JFK case. Somehow he arranged for his web site to exist for seven years after his death. I guess that was his way of getting the last slap in at McAdams and Von Pein. Nice one Tom. http://www.whokilledjfk.net/ He was indefatigable. RIP Tom. You will be missed.

What is the evidence that those five people were really CIA?