James DiEugenio

LOL, ROTF. I mean if you let this guy ramble on, I think he would say he was sitting behind Oswald in the Texas Theater.

William: One would think after the disasters of Iraq and Libya, the nutty Neocons would learn their lesson. Flip a coin as to which was the worse debacle. I still cannot get over using NATO to bomb Africa. When in fact the JoInt Chiefs said you could have had a diplomatic solution to get rid of Gaddafi instead of reducing Libya to a failed state. But then, HRC tries to convince Obama to invade Syria? OMG. Obama then writes an article saying how he was not going to be snookered twice. But he does not admit that he approved Timber Sycamore a 1.2 billion covert action. Which ended up employing Islamic fundamentalists in the Nursa Front. I mean that one got so bad Moscow had to come in to rescue Assad. How bad does it get when the Russians save a secular state in the Middle East? In both situations, we ended up on the side of the Muslim fundamentalists. Kennedy liked Nasser because that is what he was not. And Libya and Syria started under a Democratic administration. This was what I meant when I said in Pittsburgh that the Neocon triumph, because what began with a Democratic senator, Henry Jackson, eventually spread to the Democratic Party. And Kennedy's policies were just about erased from history. You have to go to rarely read books to find them.

Robert Dreyfuss is an expert on America in the Middle East. He is no big fan of Kennedy. In his book Devil's Game, he says that Nasser was the last time you could have had peace in the area. So please do not say its me.

BTW, Feith was also associated with the Henry Jackson coterie. I think he was brought in by Wolfowitz. Is it not really something that the Russians had to come in to save a secular leader in the Middle East, namely Assad. And do not forget, that Nasser united Syria with Egypt for a short time before the Saudis short circuited it. Kennedy then sent aid to Egypt to cushion the blow. The Neocon philosophy now dominates in Washington. Diplomacy is a four letter word.

Paul, As I said I think the McLeod article came from Mintpress. The Unz Review is a collective site. Which many have objected to on the grounds you state. PS: I just checked and it is from Mintpress. https://www.mintpressnews.com/

Nice one James. BTW, I am already being urged to do a similar obit on Epstein who passed away recently. Oh God. What slime.

Nice one Paul. Did not know about the Jackson/Biden alliance. In my talk in Pittsburgh, I noted that the core of the Neocon movement, which flowered under Reagan, originated with Jackson, a Democrat. This was: Perle, Abrams, Wolfowitz, Kirkpatrick and Gaffney, who was even extreme for Reagan. They all came from Jacksons's camp. IMO, Jackson would never had have the prominence he did if the Kennedys were not murdered. I think that second article about UANI was from MIntPress originally. They are a truly independent source of info. They sponsored Whitney Webb. Joe Lieberman turned out as this generation's Henry Jackson.

Well Joe, with Hugh, you never know. That might turn up in one of his "notes" now that he is dead.

Thanks so much for this Ron. Do not worry about the first edition, the second is much, much better.

Concerning Phelan, who Pat mentions in relation to Maheu, he had done other government assignments, like attacking Scientology, and he would not admit that he was doing this as an assignment until he was confronted with the documents showing he was. And he was close to Maheu, so that might be an avenue. Concerning Hugh being everywhere: one would think that in 60 years he or one of his cohorts would have found a film or photo of him to bolster that claim. If so, I don't recall it ever being surfaced. Not one in any of the four places. Let alone all four.

Tom: When you read DB on Hugh and the Wegmanns you will greatly understand how plugged in this guy was and how totally corrupt the Wegmanns were. Hugh had infiltrators in Garrison's office who would tip him off to what the DA was on to. Hugh would then find these people, and at times, talk to them before Garrison even did. I describe the whole thing with SAS in detail in the book. But even minor witnesses like Julian Buznedo, a friend of Ferrie's. When I called him, he said that the FBi talked to him before Garrison did! I asked him, how long before? He said at least a week or so. There were witnesses that Hugh just completely scared off and intimidated and I mention one in the book. After he did so, he assured the Wegmanns not to worry about the guy. Then there was his journey up to Clinton, I think Phelan was with him, where he tried to bribe Manchester. And when you read the book, that is not all. Who was paying him? Was it Newsweek? Through a CIA subsidy? That is what I suspect.

Here is a reply to my article from a reader who shall remain nameless. He gets what I am talking about. Dear Jim, As I was reading your piece on Hugh Aynesworth, I smiled and recalled being a witness to the assassination of Julius Caesar, the gunfight at the OK Corral, and all eighteen of Mickey Mantle's World Series home runs. With best wishes,

Can we get back to what my article is about.? Pat has turned this into an acoustical exercise, greatly aided by Mark. Avoiding the questions I asked in that part of the essay: was Hugh in Dealey Plaza and if so, where is the photo of him? Was he at the scene of the TIppit murder, how could he have gotten there before the official shooting time, and if so, does not that prove the opposite of what the WR says? Was Hugh at the Texas Theater when Oswald was apprehended? Can anyone show him coming out of the theater or in any witness description inside the theater. Was he at the scene of the Oswald assassination? If so, is there any film or photo evidence depicting him there? In the case of Hugh, I do not trust any notes because of the obvious problem of him being an amoral huckster on the JFK case. Which my article proved beyond any shadow of a doubt. I mean consider the following: 1. Intimidating the Commission into an Oswald did it case by threatening to show the FBI blew the case. 2. Warren was covering up a communist conspiracy. 3. Oswald was a homicidal leftist nut who was going to assassinate Nixon--which was patently impossible. 4. According to his own words, keeping films of him sleeping with Marina as some kind of blackmail weight over her. 5. Stealing the Oswald diary out of the evidence room and making tens of thousands while cutting Marina out of the proceeds. 6. Being an BFI and White House informant on the Jim Garrison inquiry and then lying about it in public. 7. Being a CIA asset who use his ties to attempt to bribe a key witness in the Clinton/Jackson incident, and then lying about that also. Pat and Mark seem to wish to sidestep these proven facts about one of the very worst reporters ever to write on the JFK case. Who he himself admitted, the facts and the public did not matter to him, his job was to keep the lid on the case no matter what. That is not what a journalist is supposed to do. But presstitute Hugh provided the model for men like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings to do the same in future national productions. I think that is the main point of the article which, for whatever reason, a couple of people want to avoid.

William, I agree with you about Trump. I would not vote for the man if he was the only candidate running. In fact, I am hard at work on a long two part article about the Insurrection, and his complicity in it, at my substack site. But on the JFK Act, I consider that a separate issue. It something that I have devoted decades to. And I want to see everything out there as the Act stated.

Joe, IMO, the so called lesbian relationship was part of his smear of Marina. Carol Hewett, perhaps the best researcher there was on Ruth, said she found no evidence of that in all the years she studied the Paines. As per his affair with Marina, well he said it and was going to show pics of it to Rachel Rendish. And Rachel said that Marina told her about it. I leave it up to the reader. What a slimeball this guy was.

I am posting this anew because, first it just went up a couple of days ago. But also, there is a lot more information in this article than any other one out there. For one example the man would never admit to who he was, that is a government informant who sought their protection. I took some time in writing it, and used a lot of both primary and secondary sources that I had accumulated over time. I have been studying the sorry career of this hack for a long time, maybe 30 years. Its a pretty sorry sight when you focus on what he did to the JFK case and how the city of Dallas covered up for him and actually enabled him. To me, he signified all that was wrong with reporting on the Kennedy case. Only Gus Russo could put him on national TV and only Jennings could have approved it. Hugh A was a walking atrocity. As long as this is, it could have been much longer. I refer the prurient reader to JFK:Destiny Betrayed for more ugly details. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/hugh-aynesworth-is-dead-the-grinch-is-gone

Here is the article that shows in detail, like no other one out there, what the Biden administration did. Its not a pretty picture. And its different than what Trump did, both in degree and in kind. Again, from two lawyers who know the act backward and forward. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-biden-cia-attempt-to-usurp-congress-authority-over-jfk-records

William, i bring no political bias to the JFK Act issue. I just want all the documents out there without redactions. We printed articles about what Trump was doing to the JFK Act, which was essentially a delaying action. Those were written by Mark himself. There was the first 6 monther, and then the three year one. But it was the Biden administration that actually significantly altered the law, to a point almost beyond recognition. And our other expert, Canadian lawyer Andrew Eiler, proved that. If you want to ignore those facts, then that is your option. But that is what I mean about making this political.

In light of this, I don't see how or why anyone should argue from the baseline of the WR anymore. Because now it is proven, with this corroboration of the French president, that it was a minority report.

I know Mark quite well, as he is a co author of The JFK Assassination Chokeholds. He has been writing on the subject of the JFK Records Act under both Trump and Biden for years at K and K. It is not true that what Biden did is the same thing as what Trump did. What Trump did was pretty bad. But, as both Mark and Andrew Eiler have proven, Biden went beyond what Trump had done. Biden actually unilaterally changed the law, he tore asunder an act of congress. Both Andrew and Mark think this is illegal and are going to pursue the determination rulings the ARRB made in order to try and prove it. If Final Determinations were made on the rest of the documents, as Tunheim says they were, then there is a case to be made. BTW, the idea that somehow the 2024 election will be decided on EF is, I think, a bit of an exaggeration. Can we put the partisan cudgels and anti Trump mania aside and listen to what Mark is saying? There might be ten people in America who know as much as this guy does about the JFK Act.

Am I glad Jonathan is not a moderator. I am fine with Mark, Ron and Sandy.

You are correct, Russell brought that point up. He says something like, the guy gets two dead on hits at a moving target, and then he misses the whole car completely? He has a hard time with that one. Plus the Magic Bullet. Plus Connally. But what this interview shows is that Cooper was as violently opposed to the official story as Russell. And he literally calls out Specter. So this whole idea that the WC was unanimous was an illusion that was papered over for PR purposes. We have been fighting what was really a smoke and mirrors mirage. That the majority of its own authors did not buy. Sickenening that this has to come out so late. But thank to Morris it is out there.

Yes, the Commission was really a minority report. And that fact was covered up by ditching the Russell, Cooper, Boggs objection and Ford concealing what he really thought of it. This is one reason that I always thought that Lifton's idea about them being fooled by the body being altered was always hard to swallow. They were not fooled by it at all. In fact, Wolff even says that Cooper thought that Specter's magic Bullet theory was fake.

I forgot to post this. Here is a link to that important interview. https://blackopradio.com/archives2024.html

Tonight on Black Op Radio, Len Osanic and myself talk to Morris Wolff, a Yale Law School graduate about his experiences with JFK, RFK, Jackie Kennedy, Malcolm X, and most importantly to this site, Senator John Sherman Cooper. As I have said, Len has the best shows and this one proves it again. Morris was transferred from Bobby Kennedy at DOJ to Cooper in the senate. Some of the things that Cooper revealed to him about the Kennedy case are pretty explosive. And they corroborate what Jerry Ford told Valery Giscard D'Estaing about what Ford really thought about the Warren Commission. What an eventful life this guy had.