Douglas Caddy

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157255

Answers sought on CIA role in ‘78 JFK probe Investigators say files could prove interference By Bryan Bender Boston| Globe Staff October 15, 2014 http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/10/15/decades-later-seeking-shed-light-cia-conduct-congressional-inquiry-jfk-assassination/dUf8qawsBQWfM2kxm7w7DM/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline WASHINGTON — It was nearly four decades ago that Eddie Lopez was hired by a congressional committee to reinvestigate the 1963 murder of President John F. Kennedy, a role that had him digging through top secret documents at the CIA. In the end, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported in 1978 that it believed the assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy, although it couldn’t prove that, and its conclusions are disputed by many researchers. But now Lopez is seeking answers to a lingering question: Could still-classified records reveal, as he and some of his fellow investigators have long alleged, that the CIA interfered with the congressional investigation and placed the committee staff under surveillance? While Lopez’s latest effort to uncover new information may seem quixotic, given the seemingly endless spate of JFK conspiracy theories, it has taken on new meaning in the wake of revelations that the CIA earlier this year spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee in an unrelated case. CIA employees hacked into the computers of Senate staffers reviewing the agency’s counterterrorism tactics. When the allegations were corroborated, the CIA apologized and vowed to take disciplinary actions. While this year’s controversy has no direct relation to the Kennedy inquiry, it has raised new questions about how far the CIA has undermined congressional oversight, including the investigation into Kennedy’s murder in Dallas. “It was time to fight one last time to ascertain what happened to JFK and to our investigation into his assassination,” Lopez, who is now the chief counsel for a school district in Rochester, N.Y., said in an interview. He is joined in the effort by two other former investigators, researcher Dan Hardway and G. Robert Blakey, the panel’s staff director. Lopez, 58, charges that the CIA actively stymied the probe and monitored the committee staff members as they pursued leads about the events leading up to the assassination. Lopez and his two colleagues are asking the CIA to release “operational files you have regarding operations aimed at, targeting, related to, or referring to” the House panel they worked for, along with records about the “surveillance of any and all members of the staff.” Their attorney, James Lesar of the Assassination Archives and Research Center, in Silver Spring, Md., asserts they have a right to any CIA files about themselves under provisions of the CIA Information Act of 1984 and the Privacy Act of 1974, which could “shed light on the confused investigatory aftermath of the assassination.” Blakey, who is now a professor at the University of Notre Dame, said he is anxious to know what the CIA was up to. “I was at Danny’s home and it looked like there were surveillance vans,” he recalled. “I would like to know what they had.” The CIA declined to comment directly on the case, but said in a statement it intends “to treat these inquiries as we would any others, in full accordance with the respective laws and regulations.” Some observers said the CIA has a long history of blocking congressional oversight of its activities. “I think there is a pattern,” said John Prados, a senior fellow at the National Security Archive at George Washington University and author of “The Family Jewels: The CIA, Secrecy, and Presidential Power.” He cited two congressional investigations in the mid-1970s of the agency’s assassination plots against foreign leaders and the arms-for-hostages operation known as the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s. In those cases, Prados and other historians allege, the CIA withheld information, spread false stories, or did not make available all witnesses. Lopez, Blakey, and Hardway contend they were rebuffed during their investigation when they asked about a CIA-backed group of Cuban exiles who had been seeking to overthrow Castro that had widely publicized ties to alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. They were informed that such a case officer did not exist for the so-called Revolutionary Student Directorate -- also known by its Spanish-language acronym DRE . Their suspicions grew when they learned from a lawsuit in the late 1990s that one of the agency’s chief liaisons to the assassination panel, the late George Joannides, was operating “under cover” and it was Joannides, a career intelligence operative, who helped manage the Cuban group before the assassination. ”He, the [DRE] case agent, denied that there was a case agent and they could not find the DRE file,” Blakey said of Joannides in an interview. “He was an inhibitor, not a facilitator, which is what he was supposed to be.” Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter whose lawsuit against the CIA shook loose some of the revelations about Joannides’ true identity and covert background, maintains that a host of files about the mysterious officer remain secret. “Was there a mission to deceive [the panel]?” asks Morley, who runs the independent research organization JFKfacts.org. The former House investigators believe so but now want the CIA to fully come clean. Said Hardway: “I hope to learn some more parts to the puzzle that the agency has kept hidden.” Bryan Bender can be reached at bryan.bender@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeBender

Lawyer's Bid for JFK Records Still on Hold By WILLIAM DOTINGA October 9, 2014 www.courthousenew.com http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/09/72309.htm SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - An attorney's bid for CIA records on the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy remains stalled, after a federal judge said Thursday that she can't tell whether the government looked hard enough for the records. Anthony Bothwell - representing himself - sued the CIA in November 2013 for denying his records request under the Freedom of Information Act relating to five people who he claims may have been involved in the Kennedy assassinations in 1963 and 1968. Bothwell describes himself as a San Francisco attorney who graduated from the John F. Kennedy University School of Law near Oakland, and later taught courses there. His initial FOIA request sought all records related to three people allegedly connected to JFK's assassination: Johnny Roselli, Jean Souetre and David Morales, As to RFK's assassination, Bothwell sought records Thane Eugene Cesar and Enrique Hernandez. The CIA denied Bothwell's request as to the JFK connections, saying that if any documents existed they would be exempt from release as "intelligence sources and methods information." For the two individuals allegedly connected to the Bobby Kennedy assassination, the agency said those records were "operational files" also exempted under FOIA. After Bothwell tailored his complaint to add the CIA as a defendant and dropped director John Brennan, the agency moved to dismiss the case saying it had done all it could for Bothwell. Specifically, the government claimed it had conducted a reasonable search for the records in question and stood behind its "neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records" response for the Souetre records, known as a Glomar response. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley said Thursday that the CIA's description of its final search for records lacked enough detail for Bothwell to challenge the search's adequacy - or for her to rule in the CIA's favor. "While the declaration by CIA litigation chief Martha Lutz provides sufficient detail regarding CIA FOIA procedures and the rationale behind searching the National Clandestine Service and Directorate of Support, the description of the CIA's final search lacks the detail 'necessary to afford Bothwell an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the search,'" Corley wrote. "It does not name the databases searched by the NCS and DS, nor does it provide a scheme of the database systems or any details of the final search strategy other than the use of names. This lack of clarity is compounded by some of the inconsistencies and ambiguities that Bothwell identifies in Lutz's description of the search results, as discussed below, and precludes the court from granting summary judgment in the CIA's favor." But Corley accepted the CIA's Glomar response for the Souetre records, buying the agency's story that 50-year-old records of the investigation into a French national's activities might reveal intelligence sources and methods that are exempt from release. "Requiring the CIA to confirm or deny the existence of a classified relationship with a foreign national runs the danger of revealing an intelligence source, method, or target," Corley wrote. "In addition, consistent use of the Glomar response is necessary for the CIA to keep its intelligence-gathering 'mosaic' whole." Corley also declined Bothwell's suggestion that redacting the files would suffice. "Here the classified information is the mere existence or nonexistence of responsive records on Souetre, not the information contained in any potential documents on him," Corley wrote. "Requesting in camera inspection would require the CIA to admit that it has records on Souetre, a fact that this court has already determined is exempt from disclosure. Thus, there is no possibility of redaction in this case." The judge ordered the CIA to explain how its search for records concerning Roselli, Morales, Cesar and Hernandez was adequate by Oct. 31

I have no additional material on Morningstar. Some parts of his radio interview were interesting and other parts run of the mill. He claims to possess the missing frames from the Zapruder film, which he said he was mailing to the program's host, George Noory. The missing frames constitute the only new information he provided in the interview. One part of his interview that I found interesting was his reference to the 5412 Committee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_of_United_States_covert_operations

Robert Morningstar in his interview said he was mailing the photos of the missing frames to George Noory, the host of coasttocoastam. I assume he is doing this to leave it to the discretion of Noory whether they will be posted publicly because of what he described as their gruesome and sensitive nature.

David Greenglass, Spy Who Helped Seal the Rosenbergs’ Doom, Dies at 92 By ROBERT D. McFADDEN OCT. 14, 2014 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/us/david-greenglass-spy-who-helped-seal-the-rosenbergs-doom-dies-at-92.html

In the latter half, civilian intelligence analyst and psychotherapist in New York Cityabout a secret space war program, and new evidence in the JFK assassination. According to his sources, we are Below is the summary of a two hour interview of Robert Morningstar on coasttocoastam radio show on October 13, 2014. The summary is brief and does not do justice to what he said in its entirety. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/10/13

Since her documents went missing after she and a retired NYPD detective delivered them to the investigative committee in Washington, my suggestion is that you direct your inquiry to whoever took the documents. I tend to believe there was a reason the documents disappeared.

Paul: Here are two relevant passages from Detective Rothstein’s report cited above: “Marita tells the detectives that the boxes contain documentation concerning OP40, the Cuban invasion, Castro, planning for the Kennedy assassination, and other covert operations that she had knowledge of. These documents were going to be delivered to the House Assassination Hearings.” “The boxes of files in Marita’s apartment were hand delivered to the House Assassination Hearings in Washington DC by Marita Lorenz and retired Det. Bobby Polachek, who had been a partner of Det. Rothstein at the 26 Precinct.” Retired Detective Rothstein today lives in Minnesota, where he is town mayor. He had occasion to ask Judge John Tunheim, now a federal judge in Minnesota, about his assessment of Marita’s files after they were delivered. Tunheim, whose biography below describes his role and responsibility, expressed amazement and stated he had never seen Marita’s files, which apparently were rushed out the back door by the CIA a short time after their delivery. The files have not been seen since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Tunheim

JFK, Sturgis, Hunt and The Bay of Pigs Jack Anderson’s interviews

When Detective James Rothstein and Fonzi talked some time after the event below, Fonzi was shocked when he realized that he had been taken in by Sturgis' telephone call and apologized to Rothstein. Fonzi performed heroic service in the cause of justice but even he was not infallible: In the morning of October 31, 1977, Halloween day, Det. Rothstein received a call from Paul Meskil, a reporter for the New York Daily News. Meskil was beside himself. Monica Lorenz, the daughter of Marita Lorenz, had just been arrested in front of her apartment on York Avenue in possession of a loaded gun. She was to be the last line of defense for Marita. Monica was hiding in the bushes in front of the apartment building on Eighty Eighth Street and York Avenue; she was going to ambush Sturgis when he showed up to kill Marita. Meskil knows that the only two Detectives he can trust are Rosenthal and Rothstein; he knows they will not back down or be stopped. The Detectives notified members of the New York Senate Select Committee on Crime, their present assignment, of the call. They jump into action. They first call the arresting officer of Monica and verify that the arrest had been made for possession of a gun. They then set up a meeting with Marita Lorenz and Paul Meskil at a small restaurant on the East Side. They all meet at the restaurant at approximately 1100 am. Marita verifies what Meskil had told the Detectives. She was very up-set, anxious, and scared. She feared for her and her children’s lives. Marita tells the Detectives that she is scheduled to testify at the House Assassination Hearings in Washington, DC, concerning the assassination of John F Kennedy. Meskil tells the Detectives that he is in possession of a tape recording made of a conversation between Marita Lorenz and Frank Sturgis; the tape is hidden at his residence in Nassau County, New York. In the tape Sturgis tells Marita, “You know what the rules are and what happens if you talk.” Meskil tells the Detectives to pick up the tape at his house and that his son would give the Detectives the tapes. Meskil tells the Detectives that he will be leaving for the Far East as soon as our meeting is over. At approximately 100 pm, the Detectives leave the restaurant with Marita and go to her apartment on Eighty Eighth Street and York Avenue. When Detectives Rosenthal, Rothstein, and Marita enter the apartment, the detectives do a quick canvass of the apartment. They see 10 to 15 boxes sitting against the wall in the dining room. The rest of the day and early evening were spent interviewing Marita in preparation for the arrival of Sturgis. Marita tells the detectives that the boxes contain documentation concerning OP40, the Cuban invasion, Castro, planning for the Kennedy assassination, and other covert operations that she had knowledge of. These documents were going to be delivered to the House Assassination Hearings. The Detectives believe they have more than sufficient evidence to arrest Sturgis. On October 31, 1977, at approximately 2130 hours Det. Mathew Rosenthal and Det. Jim Rothstein arrested Frank Sturgis when he came to assassinate Marita Lorenz, a witness to the planning of the Kennedy assassination. When Sturgis rang Marita to gain entry to the building, Rosenthal and Rothstein assumed their position. They crouched low next to the door with their guns drawn and their shields pinned to their suit jackets. When Sturgis entered the premises, Rothstein placed his gun in Sturgis’ mouth and shouted, “Police! You’re under arrest mother xxxxer; don’t move.” Sturgis mumbles, “I hope you’re Detectives.” Rosenthal had his gun put to Sturgis’ chest and identified himself as a Police Officer. The Detectives searched Sturgis. Once the Detectives knew that the scene was under control, Rothstein congratulates Sturgis for assassinating John F Kennedy. Rothstein tells Sturgis that he was present when Kennedy ordered the bombing and support to stop, just as the invasion of the Bay of Pigs began. Sturgis says, “The only way you can know that is if you were on the Essex.” Rothstein replies, “Yes, I was.” Rothstein and Sturgis shook hands; they were both professionals and were doing their job. Detectives Rothstein and Rosenthal questioned Sturgis for approximately two hours at Marita’s apartment before taking him for booking at the local precinct. During this time, Sturgis was very frank with the Detectives. He admitted that he was on the Grassy Knoll at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, when Kennedy was assassinated and that he was one of the shooters from the Grassy Knoll. The Detectives received valuable information from Sturgis. Sturgis tells the Detectives that OP40’s mandate was “to protect our country at all costs.” When Sturgis was asked why Kennedy was assassinated, he told the Detectives that there were three reasons. Number one was that Kennedy had double-crossed OP40 in the Bay of Pigs Invasion by pulling back the support. Number two was that he (Kennedy) had been told to stay away from the women, especially the Russian woman, Ellen Rometsch, because he would be compromised and jeopardize national security. Number three was that Kennedy was destroying the black community through his liberal social programs. The second part of the questioning was about his involvement in the Watergate Break-in that occurred on June 17, 1972. Sturgis was one of the five burglars arrested by Sgt. Paul Leeper, Det. Carl Shoffler, and Det. John Barrett, of the Washington D.C. Police Department. Sturgis said it was a set-up from the start, there had to have been a rat on the inside who sold them out. Sturgis said the break-in was to get the “book” that had the names of clients who used the prostitution and pedophile ring operating out of the Democratic National Headquarters. This information was to be used to compromise both Republican and Democratic clients who used the ring. The break-in led to the fall of President Richard Nixon on August 8, 1974. President Nixon had nothing to do with the planning of the break-in. In fact he had no prior knowledge that the break-in was going to occur. Later Shoffler would tell Rothstein that he had somebody on the inside and had received information that the break-in was going to happen. Shoffler’s tour had ended one and a half hours before he made the arrest. In 2012, Robert Merritt called retired Det. Rothstein and stated that he was Shoffler’s informant. In a book written by Robert Merritt, Watergate Exposed, he tells the tale of the break-in. When Sturgis was taken to the local precinct the Detectives identified themselves and told the desk lieutenant that they were booking Frank Forini (Sturgis’ real name). They took Sturgis to the Detectives room and began processing the arrest. That’s when things got strange. Rosenthal advises Sturgis of his rights. Sturgis asks to make a call, which Rothstein does. He tells Rothstein to call Gaeton Fonzi, the investigator in the House Assassination Hearings. Rothstein is surprised, that a suspect would call the investigator and he is the suspect. When Fonzi answers the phone, Rothstein identifies himself and tells Fonzi that Sturgis is under arrest and wants to talk to him. Fonzi was dumbfounded. (See The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi, page 103). Shortly after the call was made the desk officer calls the Detectives to inform them that a Frank Nelson (CIA and Organized Crime in Cuba) was at the desk and was looking for Frank Sturgis, and, if in, fact Forini was Sturgis. The answer was yes. Within minutes all hell broke loose. Every big boss in the Police Department was calling to find out what happened. The Detectives finished booking Sturgis and were requested to report to the offices of John Guido and Harold Hess, two of the top bosses involved in this type of case. When the Detectives arrive at Guido and Hess’s office they are asked if they had anything eat. The Detectives said no. Hess sends out one of his staff to get a six pack of beer and sandwiches. He asks the Detectives, “Is it good and clean arrest?” The Detectives say, “Yes, it is and it is solid.” Hess replies, “Good that is all I want to know.” The Detectives advise Guido and Hess of what happened. Rosenthal and Rothstein are asked to arraign Sturgis and go home and get some rest. At the arraignment of Frank Sturgis in Manhattan Criminal ADA Broomer is assigned to the case. The Detectives inform Broomer of the tape corroborating the allegations made by Marita and Meskil. Broomer asks the Detectives where the tape is. They inform Broomer that they will pick up the tape at Meskils residence in Nassau County on their way back to the city from their residences. Early the next morning all hell breaks loose again. Unknown members of the New York City Police Department went to Meskil’s residence to get the tapes. When Meskil’s son answers the door, he sees that it is not Detectives Rosenthal and Rothstein. The son calls the Nassau County Police Department and tells them that somebody was at his door trying to take evidence of the Kennedy assassination. Nassau County Police responded in full force. The New York City Cops were sent packing. Detectives Rosenthal and Rothstein are notified by Guido and Hess of what happened; somebody had sand-bagged them and they should immediately proceed to the Meskil residence and retrieve the tapes. Rosenthal and Rothstein meet with the son at Meskil’s residence and the son was so proud that he had protected the tapes for Rosenthal and Rothstein, as his father had told him to do. The son gives the tapes to the Detectives. The detectives knew what was coming; the cover-up was started. Detectives Rosenthal and Rothstein take the tape to ADA Broomer’s office and the tape is played. Marita and Meskil were right. Sturgis is heard telling Marita, “You know what the rules are and what happens if you talk.” Broomer and the powers to-be decide that is not a threat. The Detectives argue vehemently that it is clearly a threat and you have to be totally stupid if you don’t understand that. The Detectives know the fix was in. The charges against Sturgis were dropped. The boxes of files in Marita’s apartment were hand delivered to the House Assassination Hearings in Washington DC by Marita Lorenz and retired Det. Bobby Polachek, who had been a partner of Det. Rothstein at the 26 Precinct. Subsequently, Rosenthal, Rothstein, and the City of New York were sued by Sturgis for $16 million for making a false arrest. The case was tried by Judge Leonard Sand in the Federal Court in the Southern District of New York. Sturgis was represented by Henry Rothblatt. Rothstein was called as the last witness late in the day. He was sworn in by the judge and the case was adjourned till the next day. As Det. Rothstein was getting ready to leave the court house, he was warned by unnamed sources that his life was in danger and that he should not go home. Det. Rothstein called one of his informants, who lived in the neighborhood near the court house, and asked her for assistance. She was connected to organized crime figures in the same area. Det. Rothstein left through the back door and was safely taken to an apartment by his informant and her friends. The next morning, Det. Rothstein took the stand to testify. Before anything was said, Judge Sand was summoned to his chambers. After an hour or so, Det. Rothstein was called to the Judge’s Chambers. Det. Rothstein was asked what it would take for him not to testify. Everybody in the courtroom, especially the media, knew Det. Rothstein was going to let it all hang out. An agreement was reached that the City Of New York was going to pay $2,500.00 to Sturgis and Det. Rosenthal and Det. Rothstein were to be commended for acting above and beyond the call of duty. Judge Sand advised Det. Rothstein that he would be called in front of the bench and, if Det. Rothstein wanted to make a statement, he could say anything he wanted to say. Det. Rothstein realized it was in his best interest to keep his big mouth shut. As Rothstein turns to leave the courtroom, Sturgis and Rothblatt shake Rothstein’s hand and asked if he would be part of their organization. Rothstein replies, “It is an honor for you to ask, but I cannot do that.” He left the courthouse. THE AFTERMATH: Sometime during the summer of 1983, Retired Detective Rothstein was sitting at the bar in Georgia’s Bar and Restaurant at 722 South Wellwood Avenue, Lindenhurst, New York talking to customers. A well-dressed man, wearing typical “spook” attire, came in and sat next to Rothstein. He introduced himself as a former New York City, police officer who had moved to Florida. During an hour conversation he told Rothstein that when Detectives Rosenthal and Rothstein arrested Frank Sturgis he was sent with a “bag of money” from Florida to get Sturgis out of jail. He did not say where the money came from. He knew all the facts about Sturgis. Rothstein has never seen or heard from him again and never knew why he came in the first place. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20008&page=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bmYZ_kWHk3Q John Stockwell speaking in 1989 on the Deep State.

One of the more explosive disclosures made by Sturgis in his confession is the identity of who killed Tippit, and it wasn't Oswald.

New Documentary: A Coup in Camelot – Advanced Screening Oct. 26 http://acoupincamelot.com/

Sharp Rise in Cuban Migration Stirs Worries of a Mass Exodus By FRANCES ROBLES OCT. 9, 2014 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/sharp-rise-in-cuban-migration-stirs-worries-of-a-mass-exodus.html

I am only repeating what I was told, which is that there is a secreted film of the assassination that shows Hunt as the spotter and Sturgis as one of the shooters. If such a film were made, undoubtedly an advanced-type camera provided by an intelligence agency was used that would have made identification of key players easy. Sturgis' written confession to Cardinal Cooke in 1971 included among the many crimes he had committed being one of the shooters of JFK. Marita Lorenz testified that she saw Hunt the night before the assassination in a safe house in Dallas distributing money to some of those involved in the planned assassination. As far as Hunt being caught up in Watergate, both he and James McCord voted to call off going into the Democratic National Committee after the building’s guard found the tape on the garage door and removed it. They were overridden by Gordon Liddy, who was the team leader and who apparently felt he could not withstand the expected dressing down by Jeb Magruder had the operation been called off. Robert Merritt claims that he told the arresting officer, Carl Shoffler, two weeks in advance of the break-in of the plan to do so on June 17, 1972. Merritt’s tip came from his own informant source who heard it in a telephone conversation that he surreptitiously listened to. Here is an excerpt from James Hougan’s invaluable account of Watergate, Secret Agenda, published in 1984: Adding to the suspicions surrounding Shoffler is the fact that he is no ordinary cop. Prior to joining the police department in Washington, he had served for years at the Vint Hill Farm Station in Virginia. This is one of NSA’s most important domestic “listening posts.” Staffed by personnel assigned to the Army Security Agency (ASA), Vint Hill Farm is thought to be responsible for intercepting communications traffic emanating from Washington’s Embassy Row. By itself, this proves nothing, but it is ironic that the police officer responsible for making the most important IOC (Interception of Communications) bust in American history should himself have worked in the same area only a few years before. Shoffler’s work at Vint Hill was mentioned in passing in the staff interviews for the Ervin committee. This occurred as the result of an allegation against Shoffler by his former commanding officer at Vint Hill, Captain Edmund Chung. According to Captain Chung, he had occasion to dine with Shoffler in the aftermath of the Watergate arrests. Chung claimed that Shoffler told him the arrests were a tip-off, that [Alfred] Baldwin and Shoffler had been in contact with each other prior to the last break-in, and that if Shoffler ever made the whole story public, “his life wouldn’t be worth a nickel.” I am glad that this particular topic of a possible secreted film has been resurrected on the forum because of the additional information provided now by members, especially that by Tommy that includes photos of the federal building from which both the Schoolbook Depository and Dealey Plaza could be clearly viewed. If the Office of Naval Intelligence had space in that building, this also is a significant piece of information.

The hidden government linking group linking JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra and 9/11 By Peter Dale Scott October 5, 2014 www.whowhatwhy.com http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/10/05/the-hidden-government-group-linking-jfk-watergate-iran-contra-and-911/

Dr. Feelgood A transcript of the Lew Rockwell Show episode 378 with Bill Birnes Talking to Lew Rockwell about Dr. Feelgood. October 8, 2014 www.lewrockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/no_author/jfks-meth-connection/

John Dean’s Watergate Whitewash 10.01.14 - 12:00 AM | by James Rosen http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/john-deans-watergate-whitewash/

L.B.J.’s Bravado and a Secret Service Under Scrutiny OCT. 2, 2014 By Michael Beschloss The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/upshot/lbjs-bravado-and-a-secret-service-under-scrutiny.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1 Fifty years ago last week, President Lyndon Johnson received the final report of the commission he had appointed, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, to investigate President Kennedy’s assassination. One of the document’s main themes, which will be painfully familiar to Americans at this moment, was the performance of the Secret Service. Johnson himself did not blame his predecessor’s murder on the Secret Service’s shortcomings. He venerated his own longtime agent Rufus Youngblood, privately recalling to an aide in 1969 — while drafting his memoirs as an ex-president — how, when the shots in Dallas were fired, the Georgian (“tougher and better and more intelligent than them all”) had bravely “put his body on me” on the floor of the vice-presidential car. L.B.J. had a lower opinion of Roy Kellerman, the agent who rode in the front passenger seat of Kennedy’s car: “about as loyal a man as you could find,” but “dumb as an ox.” Ultimately Johnson built an excellent relationship with the Secret Service. But as early as the week after the Dallas assassination, the F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover, who was an old Johnson friend and Washington neighbor, tried to sow seeds of doubt in the president’s mind about the service. Hoover was eager not only to do some damage to a bureaucratic rival, but also to distract L.B.J. from mistakes made by his own bureau that may have contributed to the assassination. With the new president secretly recording their conversation on a Dictaphone machine, Hoover told Johnson that “much to my surprise, the Secret Service do not have any armored cars.” “The president ought always to be in a bulletproof car,” Hoover said. “You could have a thousand Secret Service men on guard, and still a sniper can snipe you from up in the window, if you are exposed like the president was.” Hoover offered Johnson one of the F.B.I.’s bulletproof vehicles. Always reaching for opportunity, Hoover tried to nudge L.B.J. to take presidential protection away from the Secret Service and give it to the F.B.I. And occasionally Johnson was receptive, especially when the Secret Service did something that displeased him. In January 1964, irate over a memo, written by a Kennedy holdover, that said agents disliked serving under him and wanted to be transferred, L.B.J. barked at Youngblood that he had just told the Secret Service director, James Rowley, “to call all of them in, and to take any of ’em’s resignations that wanted to.” “And if they don’t want to handle it, we’ll get the F.B.I. to do it,” he said. “Hoover thinks I could be handled a lot better anyway. “Now I thought I did pretty well after Dallas and I thought I reflected credit on the Secret Service. I did my damnedest to compliment you and everybody else.” But if there were more complaints by Youngblood’s colleagues, he said, “we’ll just change the damned law in about five minutes.” During another moment of pique at the Secret Service that year, Johnson carped that when he traveled, “they notify everybody in town what time you’re coming, how you’re coming, where you’re coming.” “They do everything except kill you,” he said. “They don’t know how to operate their guns. Hell, I had 10 of ’em out there one day trying to kill a snake, and they couldn’t kill it — they just emptied the gun — at my ranch.” More surprising, even in the knowledge that he was trying to reduce federal spending during his first year as president, Johnson grumbled that his Secret Service coverage was too expensive and overwhelming. This was despite the obvious fact that so recently in Dallas, Secret Service protection had been insufficient. Presuming that the safety of the White House was beyond reproach — perhaps inadvisably, given the disclosures of the threats to President Obama in 2011 and last month — Johnson told Director Rowley in March 1964 that he wanted even fewer agents than Kennedy had “because I’m staying right in this house.” I'm sure LBJ wanted to stand up in that car with RFK just to make RFK feel as uncomfortable as possible. They hated each other and this... “I won’t even go to the bathroom if I have to have more people,” he said. “I promise you I won’t go anywhere. I’ll just stay behind these black gates.” On Oct. 1, 1964, only a week after he received the Warren Report, L.B.J. complained to Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, his running mate in the election that fall, about criticism by the Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, and others that he was risking his life by campaigning among crowds (asserting that he was “a man of the people”): With dubious accuracy, Johnson said: “Just tell them that the Secret Service has never had the slightest concern. That’s the way to cut him. “For shaking hands with high school kids that are sure American citizens! What they need to cover is the route that a candidate follows — the buildings and the cowards that lurk in the dark. There is not any problem with getting out and shaking hands. Kennedy shook hands with three or four groups. That wasn’t what killed Kennedy.” Ignoring the circumstances of the assassinations of Presidents Garfield and McKinley, Johnson went on: “No president has ever been assassinated by shaking hands with somebody or being in a crowd. They are assassinated when they go to a theater, or when they drive down the street and somebody can hide.” Two weeks later, Johnson publicly demonstrated his bravado by insisting that he and J.F.K.’s brother Robert (who was campaigning for the United States Senate from New York) stand up together in an open limousine during a motorcade through unruly crowds in Brooklyn. It was only 11 months after Dallas. Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian, is the author of nine books and a contributor to NBC News and “PBS NewsHour.”

It was during the shooting. If one goes back to the original posting on this particular topic, there is a reply by Thomas Graves to a comment I made in which he said that the post office building that overlooks both Dealey Plaza and the school book depository building would have been an ideal place for an intelligence agency to have filmed the event because of having prior knowledge of it going down. I believe that Tommy even mentioned that the building's postmaster was a Warren Commission witness. I shall try to find the original posting and post the link here.

No, this is not the film. My information was based on disclosure from an intelligence agent who had seen the film. The film was of the assassination of JFK and according to the agent it clearly showed Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis being present at the time of the assassination. The agent said it would be disclosed publicly around the time of the 50th anniversary of the event but for whatever reason it was not. The was a flurry of publicity at the time about a new film of the assassination being offered for sale by a Texas real estate person but the news about that film soon petered out. I wonder how many people alive today were of age when the assassination took place. It could be that disclosure of such a film now would by met by the general public with a big yawn as it along with the Vietnam War and Watergate are subjects about which they have never heard anything because they are ancient history. Bill Hicks had a great line in his routine on the assassination about someone who said to him: what is the big deal, it happened a long time ago? Hicks response to this was: well, don't talk to me about Jesus then.

A Secret Service Agent Leaked President Obama’s Schedule To Mitt Romney In 2012 http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/02/secret-service-agent-leaked-president-obamas-schedule-mitt-romney-2012.html

Phone-hacking trial: Rebekah Brooks drops costs application Publisher News UK’s decision will save the taxpayer millions of pounds and avoids a protracted legal argument about costs · By Lisa O'Carroll · · The Guardian, Wednesday 1 October 2014 08.21 EDT Rebekah Brooks has dropped her application for the taxpayer to reimburse her legal costs of up to £7m relating to the marathon phone-hacking trial. She dropped the claim after News UK – the News Corp subsidiary that under a previous guise as News International published the now-defunct News of the World – which was indemnifying her costs, said it would not be seeking to be reimbursed following her acquittal on all charges. The publisher’s decision also means other cleared defendants in the trial who were indemnified by News UK have dropped their cost claims. News UK’s decision saves the taxpayer millions of pounds and was made because the company did not wish to become embroiled in a protracted argument about its case. Robert Smith QC, for News UK, said the sheer scale of the exercise of assessing costs had become clear and this had troubled the company. “It is for that reason that News UK have indicated it did not feel willing to engage in an exercise addressing these issues,” said Smith. A spokesperson for News UK said: “Given the certainty that our costs would continue to increase disproportionately, we’ve taken the pragmatic view not to seek repayment from the defendants for legal costs borne by the company.” News UK’s decision not to reclaim costs, although expensive, means it avoids a potentially damaging and protracted scrutiny of its stance during and before the trial. In a hearing in July Mr Justice Saunders warned that when it came to costs applications: “I have to consider whether any defendant brought it on themselves and also whether I would have to consider News International conduct in relation to the matter.” Although News UK was not a party to the trial, it told the defendants it no longer wanted to be the beneficiary of any costs order. Brooks’s counsel said she had never intended to try to recover any personal expenses in relation to the trial, which would have included rent of a Georgian townhouse in Bloomsbury, central London, 15 minutes’ walk from the court. It is believed the costs for the former News International chief executive were between £5m and £7m, with the total for the other defendants running to several million. Two of the six defendants acquitted in the trial are however seeking all, or a portion of their costs. Rebekah Brooks’s husband Charlie is seeking ballpark costs of £600,000 including VAT. Stuart Kuttner, former managing editor of the News of the World, is seeking £135,000 of costs incurred before News UK indemnified him in January last year. Smith told Saunders at the Old Bailey hearing: “News UK would not seek or accept any part of any order by way of costs of central funds, public funds.” It is believed the company’s decision was made in the last 24 hours. It emerged during the hearing that News UK had indemnified Brooks for her legal costs. Brooks’s counsel, Jonathan Laidlaw QC, told Saunders: “Any money that would have been subject to a claims cost order would have gone immediately to News to compensate them for the financial support they were good enough to afford her during her trial.” He said: “As News’s position is that they do not want to receive any costs from this trial ... I formally withdraw the application on her behalf.” News UK had also indemnified the legal costs incurred by the company’s head of security Mark Hanna, Brooks’s former secretary Cheryl Carter, and security guard Paul Edwards. They also will not be making applications for costs, the judge was told.

Kissinger Drew Up Plans to Attack Cuba, Records Show By FRANCES ROBLESSEPT. 30, 2014 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/world/americas/kissinger-drew-up-plans-to-attack-cuba-records-show.html?_r=0 MIAMI — Nearly 40 years ago, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger mapped out secret contingency plans to launch airstrikes against Havana and “smash Cuba,” newly disclosed government documents show. Mr. Kissinger was so irked by Cuba’s military incursion into Angola that in 1976 he convened a top-secret group of senior officials to work out possible retaliatory measures in case Cuba deployed forces to other African nations, according to documents declassified by the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library at the request of the National Security Archive, a research group. The officials outlined plans to strike ports and military installations in Cuba and to send Marine battalions to the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay to “clobber” the Cubans, as Mr. Kissinger put it, according to the records. Mr. Kissinger, the documents show, worried that the “I think sooner or later we are going to have to crack the Cubans,” Mr. Kissinger told President Ford at a meeting in the Oval Office in 1976, according to a transcript. The documents are being posted online and published in “Back Channel to Cuba,” a new book written by the longtime Cuba experts William M. LeoGrande, a professor of government at American University, and Peter Kornbluh, the director of the archive’s Cuba Documentation Project. The previously undisclosed blueprint to strike Cuba highlights the tumultuous nature of American-Cuban relations, which soured badly after the 1959 revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. Mr. Kissinger, who was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977, had previously planned an underground effort to improve relations with Havana. But in late 1975, Mr. Castro sent troops to Angola to help the newly independent nation fend off attacks from South Africa and right-wing guerrillas. That move infuriated Mr. Kissinger, who was incensed that Mr. Castro had passed up a chance to normalize relations with the United States in favor of pursuing his own foreign policy agenda, Mr. Kornbluh said. “Nobody has known that at the very end of a really remarkable effort to normalize relations, Kissinger, the global chessboard player, was insulted that a small country would ruin his plans for Africa and was essentially prepared to bring the imperial force of the United States on Fidel Castro’s head,” Mr. Kornbluh said. “You can see in the conversation with Gerald Ford that he is extremely apoplectic,” Mr. Kornbluh said, adding that Mr. Kissinger used “language about doing harm to Cuba that is pretty quintessentially aggressive.” The plans suggest that Mr. Kissinger was prepared after the 1976 presidential election to recommend an attack on Cuba, but the idea went nowhere because Jimmy Carter won the election, Mr. LeoGrande said. “These were not plans to put up on a shelf,” Mr. LeoGrande said. “Kissinger is so angry at Castro sending troops to Angola at a moment when he was holding out his hand for normalization that he really wants to, as he said, ‘clobber the pipsqueak.' ” The plan suggested that it would take scores of aircraft to mine Cuban ports. It also warned that the United States could seriously risk losing its Navy base in Cuba, which was vulnerable to counterattack, and estimated that it would cost $120 million to reopen the Ramey Air Force Base in Puerto Rico and reposition destroyer squadrons. The plan also drafted proposals for a military blockade of Cuba’s shores. The proposal warned that such moves would most likely lead to a conflict with the Soviet Union, which was a top Cuba ally at the time. “If we decide to use military power, it must succeed,” Mr. Kissinger said in one meeting, in which advisers warned against leaks. “There should be no halfway measures — we would get no award for using military power in moderation. If we decide on a blockade, it must be ruthless and rapid and efficient.” Mr. Kissinger, now 91, declined a request to comment. The memos show that Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was secretary of defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Ford, and again under President George W. Bush, was also present at the meeting when Mr. Kissinger ordered up the contingency plan. Mr. Rumsfeld, 82, also declined a request to comment. Some Cuba historians said the revelations were startling, particularly because they took place just as the United States was coming out of the Vietnam War. “The military piece dumbfounds me a little bit,” said Frank O. Mora, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense who now directs the Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida International University. “For Kissinger to be talking the way they were talking, you would think Cuba had invaded the whole continent.”