Douglas Caddy

Is it a coincidence that the son of Oliver Stone, the producer and director of the anti-U.S./pro-Russia propaganda film titled "Ukraine on Fire," hosts "Watching the Hawks" on RT, the American pay television news channel based in Washington, D.C. which is part of the RT network, a global multilingual television news network based in Moscow and Russia funded by the Russian government?

The Curious Case of William P. Barr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmmhzmhouic&fbclid=IwAR2HACLaqpKnzzcqrfy2otf8ijgHNfHB5pFYThfRC4zCnCfoDy6-jV6I9xs

Trump ready to use government to destroy Democratic nominee whoever that may be: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/02/trump-is-already-set-use-government-destroy-democratic-nominee/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-g%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&utm_term=.c14539f4a505 From the article: But in this case, the Times acknowledges the story’s provenance right in the headline: “Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies.” Regular readers will know that I’m hardly Joe Biden’s biggest fan, but this story seems particularly weak in its implication that Biden did anything remotely wrong. What it comes down to is that, as vice president, he advanced Obama administration policy by pressing Ukraine to fight corruption, a perfectly worthy goal shared by lots of countries.

[Note: The politics of the Ukraine are convoluted to say the least.] From the article "The decision to reopen the investigation into Burisma was made in March by the current Ukrainian prosecutor general, who had cleared Hunter Biden’s employer more than two years ago. The announcement came in the midst of Ukraine’s contentious presidential election, and was seen in some quarters as an effort by the prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, to curry favor from the Trump administration for his boss and ally, the incumbent president, Petro O. Poroshenko." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html

https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Morley-v-CIA-Supreme-Court-petition.pdf

Prosecutors subpoena Roger Stone associate Credico Randy Credico, a radio host, is expected to shed light on Stone’s efforts to connect with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election. By NATASHA BERTRAND 04/30/2019 03:26 PM EDT Updated 04/30/2019 04:28 PM EDT https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/30/roger-stone-randy-credico-subpoena-1294231?fbclid=IwAR1UGj65foWOX8YR9xTGEcXcDH1MjJETRkk1wgeT3tbQmbWXMpIWt0Fv3SE

John Newman posted this on Facebook yesterday: The 26-27 April Burris series I posted on FB and twitter has spawned a lot of discussion on this news feed and across a wide spectrum of shares and tagged posts. My last post on this feed was on 27 April and it's pretty sprawling by now and I want to add something to it with a particular and different focus and use a new post to do so. In a 27 April thread created Randy Owen on my latest volume, “Into the Storm,” as the discussion rolled into the second day Gerry Simone pose...d this question: “Did assassination attempts against Castro continue after JFK’s assassination—and neutralization of RFK’s power as the Attorney General?” I replied to Gerry Simone this way: A hypothetical model that I began to explore about four years ago—as I was in the early stages of work on Volume II ("Countdown to Darkness")—posited that the nucleus of perpetrators in the president’s murder was considering Castro as potentially more valuable alive than dead. I also told Gerry Simone that I would expand on that response here in a new post on my main news feed. So, at this time, I would add this further refinement to my hypothetical model. The nucleus of perpetrators realized that a living Castro offered the best way to frame RFK for getting his brother killed and nearly starting WWIII. Castro’s death before the murder of JFK made the cover plot to blame RFK with the ultimate responsibility far more difficult if not out of the question. Furthermore, Castro’s continued existence permitted the Castro-did-it-because-of-Bobby scenario to flower as Sam Halpern watered it non-stop in the decades that followed. We would anticipate continuing plots to kill Castro that were designed to fail. There are more tentacles in this hypothesis, but I’ll stop there. It’s too early to estimate the validity of this model, but, because Gerry Simone asked that question, I felt like putting this idea out there. The time frame of the end of Volume III and the start of Volume IV (“Armageddon”) is about right for this kind of nefarious idea to take hold. And, if it did, getting hold of the ongoing plots to assassinate Castro before one of them succeeded would quickly have become a priority. We’ll see how things work out downstream.

https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/potomac-books/9781640120358/

The New York Times obituary of Watergate attorney William Bittman contains an error of omission. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/03/us/william-bittman-69-won-hoffa-conviction.html The obituary fails to note that William Bittman was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate coverup. He took the “hush” money from Anthony Ulasewicz after I turned it down. Strangely, there is another Times article that notes that Bittman was an unindicted co-conspirator. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/22/archives/prosecutor-reported-to-find-26-in-coverup-plot-others-reportedly.html From the article: Other persons on the Jaworski list, the sources said, were Frederick C. LaRue, a former White House and campaign aide, who has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice; Paul L. O'Brien, attorney for the re‐election committee; William 0. Bittman, attorney for one of the original defendants; John J. Caulfield, an investigator for the campaign committee, and Anthony T. Ulasewicz, who worked for Mr. Caulfield

This Guardian article repeats the same error found in the original New York Times article that said McCord and the four Cuban-Americans pleaded guilty at the first Watergate trial. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/28/james-mccord-obituary?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR22XAYIBTz8YV0TqTwpFoXcE1pPJdm9H436FBpZkde-GrGSi_fIYvbTOOg Here is my letter to the editor of the Times calling attention to the error in their original obituary article on McCord. It took a week for the Times to correct its original article after I provided it what actually transpired. The Times did not correct its error about when Hunt and Liddy were arrested. Three months after the break-in is not "soon." Doug <> To: letters <letters@nytimes.com> Date: Sat, Apr 20, 2019 3:49 pm The obituary inaccurately states: "But in January 1973, Mr. McCord and the burglars pleaded guilty, and Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy were convicted in a federal trial, all seven on charges of burglary, wiretapping and conspiracy." I testified as a (voluntary) witness for the defense and an (involuntary) witness for the prosecution at this first Watergate trial, having been retained by Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy as the original attorney for the Watergate seven a few hours after the arrests of McCord and the four Cuban-American burglars at Watergate. Hunt and the four Cuban-Americans pleaded guilty at the start of the trial. Hunt's wife, Dorothy, had been killed in a plane crash in Chicago the month before. Hunt was a broken man and feared one or more of his four children would be killed next if he did not plead guilty. McCord and Liddy stood trial and were found guilty. The article also states that "E. Howard Hunt, a former C.I.A. agent, and G. Gordon Liddy, the re-election committee’s general counsel, who ran the break-in from a nearby hotel room, fled but were soon arrested." My memory is that although the five burglars were arrested on June 17, 1972, Hunt and Liddy who fled the scene remained free from arrest until they were indicted along with the five arrested burglars in September, three months later. Some persons at the time accused the three prosecutors of delaying the indictment until September so that the trial of the seven defendants would take place after the November presidential election. I personally believe the indictment was delayed for this reason. Douglas Caddy Houston, Texas

https://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2011/03/off-boards.html?fbclid=IwAR2QOZfAGVmlC4X5IpMC4GZIPiw-6t5_zwOgqmf5M6la61OZSw34B4zrROs

Bio of the late great journalist, Bob Parry, who died this past January. https://www.bing.com/search?q=robert+parry+biography&qs=AS&pq=robert+parry&sk=AS3SC1&sc=8-12&cvid=56A6A311B98341A69A60F0574879ABE6&FORM=QBRE&sp=5

John Newman posted this on Facebook today: As promised this is a sneak preview from Volume IV--"Armageddon"--about a moment of high drama for Colonel Howard Burris in March 1962: An Episode of High Drama in Burris’ Subterranean Prowling in March 1962: The showdown between Lemnitzer and JFK over U.S. ... intervention in Cuba took place during four crucial days in mid-March 1962. On 13 March Lemnitzer, forced by the Kennedy brothers' knee-capping of Lansdale a few days earlier, sent his Northwoods invasion plans to Kennedy. On 16 March, in front a dozen senior officers from the White House, Pentagon and State Department, Lansdale was on hand to watch and record the face-to-face showdown between the president and the chairman of the JCS. At this crucial inflection point of history, Lemnitzer could not afford for the president to know the truth about Vietnam, where he was also pressing JFK to intervene. During those same four days in March 1962, Colonel Burris (LBJ's putative "aide") was in discussions with the Joint Chiefs’ staff and General Taylor’s office about the failing war effort in Vietnam. Burris told me that they all knew that McNamara was not being told the truth about Vietnam. On 16 March—the very day of the Kennedy-Lemnitzer faceoff over invading Cuba—Burris told Vice President Johnson in a memo that the chiefs knew the truth about the failing war effort in Vietnam. Four days later Burris scrawled this dark note at the bottom of that memo: “This same question of ‘where are we in Vietnam’ still disturbs Mr. McNamara. He is leaving today, 20 March, for meetings in Honolulu, where he hopes to obtain some answers.” Of course, all McNamara got from the military was more lies on Vietnam. President Kennedy, however, rebuked Lemnitzer in front of those gathered at the Cuba showdown and sent the JCS chairman packing. See More

Geoff Shepard speaks out about the CNN 4-part series on Nixon https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/22/cnn-shows-zero-interest-questioning-conventional-wisdom-watergate/?fbclid=IwAR217ckMXJL4X0nooiPRfu5BIiy-yrg5pO6aUY0SUoLoQnlg8UCwOGLV4HE#.XL_XODZqLMA.facebook

Note: The above is John Newman's full commentary on Facebook the ends abruptly with "NEXT: WHY WAS THE ONLY RECORD OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY MEETING WRITTEN BY BURRIS? AND HOW DID HE GET ACCESS TO NSC DOCUMENT AND MEETINGS?]"

Note: Jim Jim DiEugenio asked a question about this yesterday] PART I: WHAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T SAY WHEN, AT THE 20 JULY 1961 NSC NET EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTE BRIEIFNG, LEMNITZER AND DULLES PRESENTED JFK WITH PLANS FOR A “SURPRISE NUCLEAR ATTACK [AGAINST THE USSR] IN LATE 1963: According to Howard Burris’ memo—the only surviving record of what happened at the meeting—"The president directed that no member in attendance at the meeting disclose even the subject of the meeting....” National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy described the president’s adverse reaction to the proposed surprise strike: “He expressed his own reaction to Dean Rusk as they walked out of the cabinet room to the Oval Office for a private meeting on other subjects. “And we call ourselves the human race.” The timing of the chiefs’ proposal was not lost on the president. Kennedy was facing Soviet ultimatums on Berlin at a time when conventional U.S. military forces, by themselves, could not prevent the loss of West Berlin to East Germany. All present at the meeting understood that without the American nuclear deterrent, Berlin could not be saved. But the crisis over Berlin wasn’t all that Kennedy had on his mind during that bizarre Net Evaluation presentation. Twice, the president obliquely broached something that those present could not yet have been aware of. Burris’ memo captured what else might have been on Kennedy’s mind: The president asked for an appraisal of the trend in the effectiveness of the attack. General Lemnitzer replied that he would also discuss this [later personally] with the president. Because Kennedy had already been told that the best window of opportunity for such a nuclear attack against the USSR would occur in late 1963, his question about the predicted trend line betrays his interest about a time other than late 1963. And Kennedy’s next comment revealed what that period was: Since the basic assumption of this year’s presentation was an attack in late 1963, the president asked about probable effects in the winter of 1962. Mr. Dulles observed that the attack would be much less effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved. Only the president knew what he was thinking about: how would the Cold War landscape look in late 1962? And, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know what the Kennedys had in mind. Their intention—after dealing with the flash points in Berlin, Laos, and Vietnam—was to reactivate the plan to overthrow Castro. The question was: what would Khrushchev be able to do about it? [NEXT: WHY WAS THE ONLY RECORD OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY MEETING WRITTEN BY BURRIS? AND HOW DID HE GET ACCESS TO NSC DOCUMENT AND MEETINGS?] See More

William Kelly wrote on Facebook about the article cited at the top of this thread: Please stop sharing this link as to why the COPA archive - decades of dedicated work was hijacked to rural Pennsylvania instead of being in DC where it belongs. Read John Judge's original work at Dave Ratcliff's Rathouse web site. The HHM in Pa. Is a sham.

Robert Caro’s Blind Spot https://slate.com/culture/2019/04/lyndon-johnson-robert-caro-affairs-misogyny.html

Buckley wrote the book, McCarthy and His Enemies, and undoubtedly consulted with Roy Cohn while writing it. When I was working with Buckley in the early 1960s he spoke of his close friendship with Cohn's law partner whose Irish name escapes me now. https://www.amazon.com/McCarthy-His-Enemies-William-Buckley/dp/0895264722

Is the Larry C. Johnson in the above consortiumnews article this guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson?fbclid=IwAR1xSBHh5DlCnf4nEv9Ban99-K9zEGAfv2DPv43uEdNrixAQZPVXGJ8CxGw

Joe, this is really interesting information about Lou and Barbara Walters.

Yes, Joe, and the Mueller Report reprints an email to Trump's attorney Michael Cohen from a Russian "businessman" that the bedroom tapes of Trump being compromised in Moscow exist. So our president is being blackmailed by Putin.

PAUL DEBOLE - JFK/RFK ASSASSINATIONS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1iLhP7K_Mk&feature=share

Trump is using Roy Cohn's legal strategies. https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-legal-strategy-subpoenas-investigations-f472ed47-988b-4762-824b-6578dfbedc3f.html [It should be pointed out that Roy Cohn was disbarred from the practice of law towards to the end of his life. But I guess he would say his strategies worked up until then.] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/06/24/roy-cohn-is-disbarred-by-new-york-court/c5ca9112-3245-48f0-ab01-c2c0f3c3fc2e/?utm_term=.c474daa4f784

In a sense Robert Morrow was ahead of his time in being consumed with the sex lives and sexual hypocrisies of politicians. The 2016 election campaign saw Trump on national TV getting off a campaign bus after being recorded about boasting of a recent adultery and other gross sexual matters, such his habit of as grabbing the private parts of women. Then there was his attempt to pay off two women he had sex with, this in the closing days of the campaign so that the voters were kept in the dark. This has resulted in a criminal investigation of the pay-offs. There are many other public scandals involving Trump and his adulterous actions. Morrow's preoccupation with sexual matters pales when contrasted with President Trump's gross sexual exploits.