James DiEugenio

BTW, let me add one other point. Bannon said, after the left the White House, the biggest mistake Trump made was in firing Comey. I agree. Its the equivalent of Clinton appointing a special counsel for Whitewater. Bernie Nussbaum argued with Clinton for hours on end not to do it. And when Clinton did, he quit. Afterwards, Clinton admitted Nussbaum was correct, it was a big mistake. Well, in retrospect this is what Trump did. Now, politically, its great for Democrats like myself. Since its wrecking the GOP. Its also great for the MSM since they never liked Trump and they get to speculate endlessly and bash Putin and bring back the Cold War. But, unless Mueller comes up with something genuine I just wonder if it does not come down to the old question of who's ox is being gored. Maybe Jeff is right, maybe Mr. Ness is right. As I said, we shall see.

To any new posters, David Josephs has done some good work in the past on things like Mexico City, and the alleged rifle that Oswald did not order. His work on Mexico City is probably going to construct a new paradigm that will go beyond anyone previous. He has an established record for using previously unearthed documents that back up his ideas and concepts. If he is disagreeing with Mr. Butler, then its because he has some fundamental factual basis for doing so. And he is trying to stop half baked ideas from growing. He has a life. He works in Sacramento and devotes a large amount of his spare time to this research. With some other illustrious writers, he spoke at Gary Aguilar's last private seminar, and that speech was broadcast on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio. If I recall it was another respected writer, Robin Unger, who corrected Butler on his "cut apart policeman".

Nice one Abe. BTW, I have to ask, has anyone done any work connecting the Homer Echeverria accusations to the Chicago Plot? I thought maybe Bill Kelley may have.

To anyone who has ever read Stockman or studied his biography, the thing about him is this: he rebelled against his own party and his own administration. It was Stockman who, in a famous interview with Bill Greider, exposed the whole Laffer/Kemp Supply Side economics idea as nothing more than Andrew Mellon trickle down economics from the 1920's. Except, as he said, you can't sell trickle down today so they renamed it Supply Side. He also attacked the Pentagon for their ridiculously easy and extravagant pension plans and said the generals prioritize those plans more than they do national security. After that speech, he left the White House. So please, let us not bury the message with the Kill the Messenger tactics, tactics that turn out to be unfair and uninformed. But even if you want to smear Stockman because of his GOP pedigree, you also have Gareth Porter, who is not a Republican. By any means. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/28/how-the-department-of-homeland-security-created-a-deceptive-tale-of-russia-hacking-u-s-voter-sites/ Again, I do not have any horse in this race. And it really does not matter to me since I do not think Trump has a chance in Hades of getting reelected. In fact, I hope he stays in office since I think he will bring down the GOP senate with him. But what I am saying is that Mueller sure is taking his time and indicting some rather minor players on some rather insignificant charges that happened after the fact. Maybe this will change. Maybe, as the article Caddy linked to tries to say, the big one is right around the corner. OK, in fairness to Mueller we can wait.

Thanks for that Jeff. I never liked Stockman's politics, but I have admired his brains and candid style. From reading this, he agrees with the FBi agent Strzok, collusion is not a crime. And also "There is no there there." He makes an interesting point with this line of argument: In fact, Stone’s purported crimes all happened long after Trump was duly elected President and had sworn the oath. But for the Russia collusion hoax itself, Stone’s crimes wouldn’t have even happened because they stem from his appearance before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) investigation in September 2017 – long after the fact.This 12 month time gap is of crucial importance because Mueller’s charges are based on Stone’s recollections of phone calls and emails during the final few months of the 2016 election – not anything he did or any one else did at the time.That is, he’s not charged with colluding with the Trump campaign or any Russians – just allegedly "lying" about his interaction with two absolutely marginal figures – a comedian and a whacko right-wing conspiracy theorists – who had exactly zero impact on the 2016 election. Indeed, the only reason these two bit players – Credico and Corsi (see below) – show up in Mueller’s comic book prosecution is that they were peripherally involved in one of Stone’s self-promoting publicity stunts during the campaign.To wit, Stone had publicly claimed that he was in direct communication with WikiLeaks and its editor Julian Assange. It turns out, however, that he wasn’t and that his claims were based on brief communications with Credico and Corsi about second hand knowledge they may have obtained from WikiLeaks or Assange about further leaked materials from the DNC. And I should add, Jonathan Turley is a distinguished law professor who apparently agrees with him. From what I understand it was Schiff who urged Mueller to go ahead and indict Roger Stone, based on his congressional testimony. So we went from one extreme with Nunes, Jordan and Gowdy, to the other. Is there something here, something more than collusion? Maybe. But Mueller is sure taking a long time to get there. Its a year and a half now. From the time McCord wrote his letter to Sirica, it took about that time to remove Nixon from office.

Thanks Paul. I agree that the list is quite suggestive. That wallet at the scene is a mind bender. And again, like Doris Holan, its not in the WR. Just like Tippit's actions after 12: 30 are not in the WR. And I agree Derek, with what we know about the TIppit case today, it would be a fascinating documentary.

I thought you posted this already Doug. Am I wrong?

IMO, and if you read my article "The Tippit Case in the New Millennium", the information would seem to indicate that Tippit was looking for someone. He failed to find him, and then made a phone call. He then got redirected to 10th and Patton. Once there, the plot really thickens. As you can read in my piece, the testimony of Doris Holan, another witness the WC could not find, really makes it appear that the cops were already there before Tippit arrived. And with the whole Oswald wallet being dropped there, it really makes it appear that Tippit was a fall guy. I have not really read Armstrong's latest piece on this--I just browsed through it-- but from what I understand he seems to think Westbrook was the key to this part of the plot. And boy was it effective. With that police force, Oswald was pretty much a dead man once they got the wallet and the call to the Texas Theater. (Maybe Hargrove can post a link to John's latest article on this.)

This is one of the dumbest themed threads I have ever seen here. Why was it brought back? The Foster character who started it has about as much insight into what Garrison was doing as Paul Hoch or Fred Litwin.

Geez Kirk: Ever heard of the word "irony"? BTW how did you leave that dirty rotten fascist Assange out of your post?

Who the heck was a good guy on the DPD? And what the heck was Tippit doing across the viaduct, pulling over the car, at the Tip Top Record Store, and then so far out of position at 10th and Patton? When all is said and done, Westbrook might have been in on it.

With the work that Joe McBride did on the Tippit case, that convinced me even more that Dallas was picked for its reprehensible police force. I give Joe credit for writing a book that is essentially about the Tippit case. Because that case is so much less glamorous than the JFK case. But he did it, and he did a creditable job. And by doing so he focused on the DPD and just how rightwing they are and the amount of KKK guys that were on the force and what they felt about Kennedy. That four part series I did on the Kennedys and civil rights helped show why they felt the way they did. Remember Leavelle's comment: John Kennedy's murder was no more important to us than a south Dallas killing of a N word. TIppit being shot, now that was something important.

I agree with you. IMO, the plot came from higher up. They understood they needed a really corrupt local police force to go along with them. Could not have done any better than Wade and Fritz. That was a ten strike. It has always puzzled me looking at the film of Oswald being shot, how Fritz does not look back at all until after everyone has realized what happened. And those two horns going off in sync with Oswald entering the foyer and Ruby jumping forward. I mean its like watching a segment from The Twilight Zone. Then we find out how many innocent defendants the Wade/Fritz regime put in jail, some on death row. And then how systematic the whole thing was. I mean Wade wrote a handbook on how to pick a jury that would convict anyone. And this local attorney said it would not surprise him at all if Fritz decided to give thumbs down to Oswald. Picking Dallas was Bingo. In retrospect, for the success of the plot, its better that Chicago and Tampa did not play out.

From ROKC site, formerly run by Greg Parker now by Stan Dane: "I instructed James R Leavelle to handcuff his left hand to the prisoner's right hand. The prisoner was already handcuffed. I instructed LC Graves to walk to his left and LD Montgomery directly behind him, and I told them I would walk directly in front of the prisoner out of the door to the car." http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/06/0652-002.gif If Fritz does not break formation, Oswald probably makes it to trial. FBI interview of 23-year former Dallas attorney Travis Kirk both in the prosecutor's office as well as a defense attorney: "...it is entirely possible and probable that Fritz had deliberately arranged to have Oswald shot in order to closethe case." He had nothing specific to go by, but "based his opinions solely on his knowledge of the methods used by Mr. Fritz." https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10486&relPageId=88 BTW, Kirk ran for office twice in the area, once in the forties and once in the fifties. So in those 23 years as an attorney he really knew what was going on in the city.

Derek: I think Hurt is still alive, but I am not positive. To my knowledge, things got too oppressive for her in Dallas and Clemmons decided to leave. In relooking at the Tippit case, I think Garrison was correct on the diagnosis: It was meant to inflame the Dallas police against Oswald. And did it ever. Joe: I did not review the Corsi book, Vasilios Vazakas did: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/corsi-jerome-who-really-killed-kennedy As I said, I was not able to figure out Roger Stone so I did not review his books. Here you have a guy who is a staunch Nixon devotee, who suddenly wants to write a book about Nixon's beta noire JFK and how he died mysteriously? Everything the GOP became after 1964 was in opposition to Kennedy, so what was Stone up to? Steve: Hawkins had a pass to the Carousel Club on him in the theater right? What calls do you refer to of his?

For the record, we reviewed the Corsi book, but not Stone's. I simply could not figure out Stone. In fact, I think that is the way he wants it. As per McBride's book, one of the many virtues of it is that it allows you to fill in a timeline for what Tippit was doing from about 12:30 to the time he was killed. McBride gives you information that is not in the WR in that regard. And once you read it, you understand why its not there. Consider the following: 1. Tippit at GLOCO station looking out at the viaduct which connects up with Dealey Plaza. 2. Tippit pulling over a car, rushing to the passenger side of the rear seat and looking to see if anyone is on the floor. 3. Tippit rushing into the record store to make a call, and then rushing back out to head for his doom. Now, try and find any of this in the WR. You will not. What kind of fact finding body was the WC then?

This is Joe's reply to Dale "Single Bullet Fact" Myers and his review of his book. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/myers-dale-with-malice-lee-harvey-oswald-and-the-murder-of-officer-j-d-tippit

That is a point I dispute with him and I did in my review of Brothers. I do think RFK did some work on the JFK case. There are indications of that. But I do not know exactly what Bobby was on to by 1968. And I really do not think its in Talbot's book either.

This was the highest rated article at Kennedys and King last year. And on Dave Giglio's Our Hidden History it has 35,000 views. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium I take no credit for any original work in that essay. The lion's share goes to Joe McBride's book.

He does? Get him over here to link to it.

RFK was not. Sheridan was. Sheridan was chief of counterintelligence at NSA, which means he interfaced with Angleton.

Considering Talbot made that speech when he did, before The Devil's Chessboard, its not bad.

Here is my review of Volume 1 https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/newman-john-where-angels-tread-lightly-volume-1 The problem I have with what John is doing is that by going on so long, it becomes more like history of the JFK administration than the Kennedy assassination. In Destiny Betrayed, second edition, I did some of this, but only to contrast it at the end with how the forces that killed Kennedy altered those policies he began.

Well, the price went down to 28 bucks. But still no Kindle. John said the problem with this is that Amazon decided to dump Create Space and collapse it into Kindle and that has caused a real back up log. Since now you have to go to other companies for the layout and format. Ron, i reviewed part 1, and I will be reviewing part 2 soon. SO if you want to start with part 3, just read those two.

I really go not know where these came from. I do know that John was one of the few people in communication with Jim Garrison in the seventies and eighties. So Garrison may have given him some of these before his son Lyon gave me what he had left over from the estate. But to be frank, some of these I do not recall seeing in the collection I sorted out. So, maybe there will have to be a third edition. And Dave Emory will interview me over two months again.