Cliff Varnell

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Calling someone out for lying is not ad hominem.Posting demonstrable falsehoods is against forum rules. There is a good reason for imposing this rule.

Pat believes what he says is true.  That's how advanced his confirmation bias is.  He is incapable of processing obvious fact (e.g. the top of the back isn't four inches below the bottom of the collar)

Because he believes it to be true doesn't make him a liar, makes him intellectually dishonest on account of advanced confirmation bias.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Good-natured condescension will not prevent members from believing/learning Pat's lies.

I have a better idea... why not let members call out Pat (or anybody else) when they post something in a way that presents it as being factual when in fact it is not? That way the errant member can qualify his statement with something like "I believe that..."

There you go!  Good idea.  Long ago I advised Pat to preface his analyses with "IF the aupopsy report on the back wound was true, then--"  Instead he insists inferior evidence is true.  Poor guy.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This is, in fact, the way it has always been on the forum. Explain why it is we should make an exception for Pat.

I think its wrong to accuse the delusional of lying.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We should have a learned from yesterday's court conviction that nobody is above the law. Make no mistake about it... if it were just some Joe Blow we were talking about here, nobody would have come to his defense. It is only because of Pat's status in the community that several have come to his defense. Well in my opinion, these people are all bad-habit enablers.

I've taken more grief battling Pat's BS than you can imagine. 

A couple guys at ROKC wanted to kick my head in.

DiEugenio said "everybody is sick of it" -- referring to my consistent destruction of Pat's arguments.

Ridicule is more effective, Sandy.

I posted this on Jacks a couple days ago...

I'm a founding member of the Pat Speer Not A Fan Club (established 2003).

I agree with a lot of Sandy's and Keven's critiques of Pat's tendencies to misrepresent witness testimony.

But their ad hominem detracts from that critique.  "Penalize" Speer for "lying"?

I've been around and around with Speer more than anyone.  He suffers from a severe case of confirmation bias.

I think good-natured condescension laden with on-beat zingers is the best approach.  (see Wilson, Alex)

I have little regard for the head wound(s) discussion.  Whether he was shot in the head once, twice, or thrice will never be known.

Questions:

What did Lee Harvey Oswald have to do with the actual killing of JFK?  Nothing.

What did CE399 have to do with the murder of JFK?  Nothing.

How many times did JFK get shot in the head?  Unknowable.

Why the [f-bomb] do those 3 subjects suck all the air out of the JFKA Critical Community?

13 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Is this where Poppy Bush got his nickname?

Not officially.  Bet he moved plenty of dope thru Zapata Off-Shore, tho.

On 5/27/2024 at 3:43 PM, Matt Cloud said:

 It's a big story -- and it's not separate from the Kennedy assassination.  They are linked.  A small factoid that may be of interest: It was what in 1970, after I thinkMoynihan's trip to Turkey to work on cutting down the opium supply through there that the Turkish premier broke the news that the Jupiter missiles in Turkey during the cuban missile crisis had been removed as part of a deal.  That revelation, that disclosure, would have been greenlit by Moynihan, I have no doubt.

So Moynihan helped take down the Corsican Mafia?  What was his role?

On 5/27/2024 at 3:43 PM, Matt Cloud said:

[Maatt's subsequent post.]

 Just flipping through my copy of ATPM now, the most damning piece of info was that there were deliberate erasures on the tapes, from Woodward/DT meeting of early Nov. 73.  Again  -- Moynihan and Butterfield very close, also Georff Shepard, who did the "expletive deleted" for the transcripts.  Also I'm looking for the passage that says to the effect that Watergate had much more to do with the drug operation or something like that.  Will find it and post here.  The book by Edward Jay Epstein -- another of Moynihan's protege -- on the drug war, which they were working on together in many ways, is also highly relevant to "untangling the knot."

TIME interview with Woodward in 1976/5 he states "he [Deep Throat] has a career in government."  Felt was out by then, and in trouble.  That's not to exclude possibility of Woodward as ever possibly misdirecting but should be taken into consideration, withal.

I suspect the downfall of the French Connection in the early 70's was engineered by traffickers out of the Golden Triangle, a cabal headed by Averell Harriman.  When the Golden Triangle got squeezed by Communist takeover of SE Asia -- Hello Afghanistan!

5 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

As you often say, Cliff, if you want to know the exact location of JFK's back wounds, just look at the bullet holes in his shirt and coat. That seems pretty definitive to me.

The JFKA may be the only cold case murder in history where the physical evidence is relentlessly ignored (e.g. Speer, Pat) or openly despised (e.g. DiEugenio, James).

38 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

  I have no doubt that the "distinguished silver-haired gentleman" that he met in 1969 outside the WH situation Room while then still in the Navy was Moynihan.  Not the place for an FBI guy like Felt to be hanging around.  lus Felt didn't have silver hair then.  Moynihan did.  The Drug Operation, involving Krogh, Liddy and Hunt, was also a NATO operation and the kind of thing that would be discussed in the situation room.   

Thanks for your reply, Matt.  This is a more involved project than I'm able to pursue right now.  Good luck in your research.

I suggest you clean up the above, however.

Matt, I propose we skip the Moynihan-as-Deep-Throat ID and cut to the chase.

What information did Moynihan provide to reporters with the Washington Post/New York Times prior to Nixon's resignation, and how did you ascertain his involvement?

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I was surprised when Matt said Moynihan was Deep Throat. And especially when you said he might be.

We all know that Mark Felt admitted to being Deep Throat decades ago. And not only that, but that Woodward and Bernstein both confirmed the identification.

I don't know how you guys get around that.

 

You guys?  I said I have an open mind given Moynihan's connection to Harriman and Harriman's motivation for revenge.

That's it.  I'm not endorsing a theory unrevealed.

The fact is Deep Throat wasn't the only source for the Washington Post or New York Times reporters who covered the story.  James McCord supplied lots of info.  Maybe Moynihan as well -- let's see what Matt comes up with.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay, so you believe that Oswald was set up to be a (or the) patsy for the assassination.

How do you suppose the assassination plotters got Oswald into the building he needed to be in to take the blame for the assassination?

 

I prefer to leave that speculation to those better informed on the matter.

As to the current DiEugenio-Cloud debate over Moynihan, on a lark I googled "Averell Harriman Daniel Patrick Moynihan" and found that Moynihan worked for Harriman for 3 years when Ave was Governor of New York.

Count Prescott Bush, Richard Bisssell, and Pat Moynihan as among Harriman's proteges.

Normally I'd recoil from discussions with someone whose solipsistic terminology ("the Ramparts crowd," "the Left wanted Vietnam") was matched with a condescending attitude -- but I make an exception in Matt's case.

I've long wondered if Harriman had a hand in Watergate.  Ave spent 7 months in 1968 negotiating a peace deal with North Vietnam only to have Nixon scuttle it right before the election.  Ave was angling for the Sec of State slot in a Humphrey Administration.  Was Watergate Ave's revenge?

Moynihan as Deep Throat?  Deserves a look.

39 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You mean, you don't believe Oswald was set up to be a patsy?

 

Fine and dandy, but I don't do the Oswald Assassination.  I leave the LHOA to others.

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

At one time it was commonly understood that the concept of post world war II limited warfare/counterinsurgency was a liberal conception, the product of the egg-heads at Harvard and RAND and "the "East Coast Establishment." 

The main architects of that policy were George Kennan, Robert Lovett and Averell Harriman.  That's your idea of "the Left"?

The Rockefellers and the Dulles brothers were "the Left"?

In 1959 Nikita Khrushchev toured the United States.  His first stop was Washington DC, his next stop New York City.

From Spanning the Century The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg. 575

<quote on>

In his second-floor drawing room, Harriman gathered leaders from mining, manufacturing, oil, chemicals, banking, and insurance industries, including John D. Rockefeller III; General David Sarnoff, chairman of RCA; Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics Corporation; W. Alton Jones, chairman of Cities Service Corporation; and John J. McCloy, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. By his estimate, scribbled on a yellow legal pad before Khrushchev arrived, they represented assets of some $38 billion. Among them, as witnesses to history, were a few men of ordinary means, former ambassadors, educators, and, notably, Rockefeller Foundation president Dean Rusk, and Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, the latter having invited himself as a "representative of the proletariat."

Surround by Picassos and Derains, their voices muffled by Persian carpets, the capitalist Titans greeted the Communist chieftain one by one, then sat in a semi-circle savoring caviar and sipping champagne and New York wine as Averell conducted his exposition of capitalism, war profits, and American politics. No one present, nor any of their friends, he and the others assured the guest of honor, favored world tensions. The assembled war profiteers, said the host, were men who'd champion disarmament the moment it became safe for the United States. There was not a hint, however, that mingling with the millionaires did anything except reinforce Khrushchev's belief that he was then in the presence of the men who controlled America far more than Eisenhower and the members of Congress he had met in Washington.

One testimonial to free enterprise followed another. And when the Soviet leader reasserted his stubborn belief that the men present composed the country's ruling circle, Galbraith later tattled, "Somebody demurred, but in perfunctory fashion."

After it was over, Harriman insisted that the Soviet leader had gained insights of "real importance."  

<quote off>

Note the heavy Rockefeller presence -- John D. 3, McCloy and Rusk.  A bunch of lefties, Matt?

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

If that doesn't represent those whom you say represent the true left so what?  What is the significance of the persons you name-drop to the topic?  What at all? 

YOU brought up "the Ramparts crowd."  What was that other than an unjustified smear?

YOU stated --  "The Left wanted Vietnam."  But "the Left" opposed the Vietnam War.  Were you around in the 60's, Matt?

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

That they were the true left and they were anti-vietnam from the start?  Fine.  If so they don't represent the other left -- the Trotskyites/would-be neo-cons -- who do.

Averell Harriman was a "Trotskyite"?

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

That has been my point all long: the 1950s had been largely about allegations that CIA for one was run by leftists, com-symps, if not outright communists. 

So the 50's were all about John Birch Society propaganda?

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

This created a fissure in the D Party between hard-line dems and appeasers.

Be specific, please.  How did Bircher propaganda create a fissure in the Democratic Party?  In 1952 Adlai Stevenson was a reluctant Democratic nominee -- his main competition was Estes Kefauver.  How did they fit your "hard-line"/"appeaser" narrative?

In 1960 a neo-con Democratic Senator from Washington became Chair of the Democratic National Committee -- for 6 months, then he drifted back into obscurity until 1972.  Henry "Scoop" Jackson.  

22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

It was through this gap, this convulsion within the left, created by The Red Scare that the neo-cons infiltrated the D party.  Then they did it to the R party in the 70s.

In 1968 three Democrats ran for President -- Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and eventual nominee Hubert Humphrey.

Do they fit your hard-line/appeaser narrative?

In 1972 the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party emerged.  Was that what you were thinking of?

2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

After 1968 when they flipped and were regarded as representing such by the Ramparts crowd for "exposing" their arrogance and folly that allegedly led America into the folly of the quagmire.  

After 1968?  I thought we were discussing the '63-'64 lead up to the escalation of the Vietnam War.  By the end of 1968 the American Left had been protesting the Vietnam War for almost 4 years.  

Where do you get the idea "the Ramparts crowd" -- Warren Hinckle and Robert Scheer most notably -- felt Halberstam and Sheenhan represented the American Left more than writers like I.F. Stone, Norman Mailer, Paul Krassner or Ralph Gleason?

2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

As to the stating of facts and not being able to state such unless one is privy to "the plotters" if that's the standard around here, there's a long line of guilty in front of me, including many on this thread alone.  

You got that right.  In my book the JFKA Critical Community is chock-full of self-aggrandizing hustlers who've failed to grasp the significance of physical evidence in a cold case murder investigation.

Me, I only tout ONE fact:  JFK was murdered by a military-style ambush involving multiple shooters.  Everything else is speculation.

2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

At any rate, inference and study and deduction and yes being privy to persons associated with "the plotters" personally and first-hand many times over has led me to my conclusions.

How did you verify the bona fides of these associated persons?

So tell us -- who did it?

3 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Halberstam and Sheehan want the Vietnam War.  They want to end colonialism I could infer; they want to change American society at home I can also infer.  Therefore you need the Vietnam War -- to do both of those things.  This isn't confusing.  The Left wanted Vietnam.  No one on the Left wants to admit this, understandably. 

Since when did David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan represent "the Left"? 

Or W. Averell Harriman and the anti-Diem faction within the CIA?

3 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Kennedy was regarded as too conservative by the Left, both on Vietnam and on civil rights.  That said, your reading of 263 continues to be myopic and superficial.  It does not go so far as you keep insisting.  But this thread is not the thread for that on-going debate.  No one knows what Kennedy would have done as events in Vietnam became worse and worse in the fall of 63 and into 1964-65.  Evidently, as this thread has pointed out, 263 was already being reversed, before the assassination.   But of course the only interpretation of this fact that gets considered here is that that somehow proves the assassination was over Vietnam.  It was not. 

Unless you were privy to the inner counsels of the plotters you can't state that as a fact.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The CIA Chief in Vietnam, Richardson, was also against the coup, and was forced out as a result by the likes of Lodge and Harriman. 

In an incredible irony, for that matter, both the Schlesinger pre-assassination article claiming the CIA was running their own foreign policy in Vietnam and the Truman post-assassination article in which he complained about the CIA were written as a response to the struggle between the State Dept., which wanted the coup, and the CIA, which thought Diem was better than the alternatives. 

The CIA wasn't always the bad guy. 

 

Ellen J. Hammer, A Death in November, pg 156:

<quote on, emphasis in the original>

When [Diem and Nhu] had first claimed that Americans were active behind the scenes in the agitation spreading in Saigon, they had sounded paranoid – a favorite word among Americans for Diem and Nhu that summer.  But who could disbelieve [David] Halberstam, with his excellent sources in the Central Intelligence Agency, when he reported that the CIA had been openly sending its agents into the pagodas and making daily contact with Buddhist priests and “other participants in this crisis”?  These agents were acting under orders – and they did not go to the pagodas to discuss the finer points of Buddhism.

<quote off>

James W. Douglass, JFK and  the Unspeakable, pg 192:

<q>

Kennedy was losing control of his government.  In early September, he discovered that another key decision related to a coup had been made without his knowledge.

A White House meeting with the president was discussing whether or not to cut off the Commodity Import Program that propped up South Vietnam's economy.  It was a far reaching decision.  For the United States to withdraw the AID program could prompt a coup against Diem.

David Bell, head of AID, made a casual comment that stopped the discussion.  He said, "There's no point in talking about cutting off commodity aid, I've already cut it off."

"You've done what?" said John Kennedy.

"Cut off commodity aid," said Bell.

"Who the hell told you to do that?" asked the president.

"No one," said Bell.  "It's an automatic policy.  We do that whenever we have differences with a client government."

Kennedy shook his head in dismay.

"My God, do you know what you've done?" said the president.

He was staring at David Bell, but seeing a deeper reality.  Kennedy knew Bell's agency, AID, functioned as a CIA front.  AID administrator David Bell would not have carried out his "automatic" cutoff without CIA approval

</q>

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Lansdale was Diem's benefactor and advisor.

The two guys running the overthrow were Lodge and Conein.

In Saigon, yes.

In Washington DC it was Harriman -- according to JFK and others,

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pgs 334-5

<quote on, emphasis added>

Who changed the coup [overthrow of Ngo Brothers in South Vietnam 11/01/63] into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest accompanying them? To this day, nothing has been found in government archives tying the killings to either John or Robert Kennedy. So how did the tools and talents developed by Bill Harvey for ZR/RIFLE and Operation MONGOOSE get exported to Vietnam? Kennedy immediately ordered (William R.) Corson to find out what had happened and who was responsible. The answer he came up with: “On instructions from Averell Harriman…. The orders that ended in the deaths of Diem and his brother originated with Harriman and were carried out by Henry Cabot Lodge’s own military assistant.”

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

At the heart of the murders was the sudden and strange recall of Sagon Station Chief Jocko Richardson and his replacement by a no-name team barely known to history. The key member was a Special Operations Army officer, John Michael Dunn, who took his orders, not from the normal CIA hierarchy but from Harriman and Forrestal.

According to Corson, “John Michael Dunn was known to be in touch with the coup plotters,” although Dunn’s role has never been made public. Corson believes that Richardson was removed so that Dunn, assigned to Ambassador Lodge for “special operations,” could act without hindrance.

<quote off>

22 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

C'mon, Cliff.

There's an astonishing amount of historical detail in DiEugenio's essay about Fetzer.

It's the kind of fund of knowledge that results from years of immersion in a subject-- by a magazine editor and author.

And my questions (above) were not rhetorical.

Do we know, for certain, that LBJ wasn't ducking in the limo?

Isn't it true that Mary Pinchot Meyer was killed by an expert assassin?

Was the guy promoting the 9/11 "hologram" hoax, in fact, affiliated with the CIA?

When DiEugenio wrote that article he regarded the location of JFK's back wound as "unknowable."

All of Fetzer's odd notions put together don't equal the absurdity of DiEugenio's former position on the back wound, or his current position regarding the clothing evidence.

"The above quote shows an almost astonishing lack of perspective and self-reflection. As we have seen in this relatively concise review of his public career, Jim Fetzer has had more gloves laid on him than a wealthy woman at a Gucci store in Beverly Hills."

That's rich coming from DiEugenio, a critic who cannot abide criticism.

24 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez, Cliff... You seem to turn every thread around here into a discussion of JFK's shirt, while ignoring/leap-frogging salient posts.  

I've got nothing against shirts, but how about DiEugenio's multi-faceted historical essay about Fetzer and conspiracy theorists?

What's the title of the thread?  Geez William, I don't even post here much anymore and when I do it's usually about other subjects.

At least Fetzer understood where the back wound was -- it took DiEugenio decades to figure it out and Pat Speer never has.

Pardon my interruption of the usual bum-smooching.

"I got to take a look at that shirt.”

Arlen Specter to Gaeton Fonzi.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GaetonFonzi/WCTandAS.html

Fonzi confronted Specter with the bullet holes in JFK's clothes, pushing Specter into a nervous breakdown over the demolition of the Single Bullet Theory.

The significance of that line is so far over the head of either Jim DiEugenio or Pat Speer it may as well have been uttered on the moon.

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks VInce, but do we really need three threads on this?  I mean c'mon.

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Great find Cliff.  

At the 5 minute mark Dr. Wecht performs a 2 minute destruction of the SBT based on the back wound  location indicated by the autopsy face sheet and the bullet the holes in JFK's clothing.

This has been done many times before, but not so much in this century.  It's the most economical way to establish the fact of conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

No need to drone on and on about the provenance of CE339, or inveigh the public with animated recreations based on micro-analyses of the Z-film, or pontificate upon the Neutron Activation Analysis of the Magic Bullet, or bother with gunshots on the police dictabelt -- or dive down any of the other myriad rabbit holes so often touted hereabouts.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound, as Dr. Wecht so ably demonstrated.

RIP Dr. Wecht

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Hi Cliff.  I've read Foggy Bottom was originally HQ for the CIA in the 1950's before Dulles created the "Farm".  I didn't know the State Department was there in 1963.  Any CIA agents still there in 1963 mingling with the State guys?

https://wtop.com/j-j-green-national/2014/10/how-the-cia-headquarters-broke-ground-in-langley-va/

Foggy Bottom is a neighborhood.  The CIA was headquartered there in the 50's.  A continued presence?  Your guess is as good as mine.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks for the corrections and clarifications!

Do you know where any of the JCS were while LBJ was flying back to Washington?

Air Force Chief Gen. Curtis LeMay was on vacation and returned to view the autopsy.  Planes in the air ready to bomb Cuba would have been under his command.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Do you know if Harriman told Bundy about the the supposed Kremlinologists thing prior to Bundy radioing LBJ?

There's no record of such a conversation, to be expected.  Bundy came up with an affectionate nickname for Harriman -- The Ol' Crocodile.

The Wise Men, Walter Isaacson & Evan Thomas, pg. 640:

<quote on>

[The Diem] coup was messy.  Diem's body was found riddled with bullets and stab wounds.

John Kennedy himself was shot to death three weeks later.  Bill Sullivan [Harriman's chief of staff] found Averell Harriman that afternoon sitting on the edge of his chair, in front of a television set, holding his head in his hands.

<quote off>

Harriman appeared very uptight that afternoon.  Sorrow over the death of the man who recently demoted him -- or sorrow the patsy was captured alive?

On 2/24/2024 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy -- JFK's cabinet members in the Situation Room at the time

McGeorge Bundy was at the Situation Room.  Averell Harriman was at the Foggy Bottom headquarters of the State Department.

On 2/24/2024 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

-- understood the severe consequences of a strike on Cuba, and argued against the General's insubordinate move. Harriman fabricated a story that he'd met with the top Kremlinologists, and that they'd informed him that the Soviet Union definitely would not have had Kennedy assassinated. (As per @Cliff Varnell info.

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

<quote on>

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association. </q>

The US governments "top Kremlinologists" were Llewellyn Thompson, Charles Bohlen, George Kennan and Harriman himself.  There was no consultation between them that day.

On 2/24/2024 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

He informed the Generals that the intelligence was wrong, and that the assassination was the doings of just one person.

There's no record of contact between Harriman and the generals.

On 2/24/2024 at 1:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

And then he radioed this information to President Johnson, who was onboard Air Force One returning to Washington.

According to Craig Roberts and Jim Bishop, it was McGeorge Bundy who claimed to have spoken to Johnson on AF1.

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

1)  I will tell you over and over you must care what happened to Marilyn.

I care about Marilyn.  I just don't care who she slept with.

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

How can you care more about Dhiem then her?

Because the overthrow of Diem led to the death of millions, including my brother who finally succumbed to the leukemia he contracted from Agent Orange exposure in 'Nam.

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

2) The RFK effort is going great.  He is on ballot now in CA.  NV next.  Already several signs up against HOA wishes.

Junior probably has pushed Trump to the right on public health issues -- Don Fuhrer vows to abolish the pandemic-response team at the White House in spite of the looming threat from bird flu.  Dumbing down to dictatorship...

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

 3)  I will admit to your Dunaway when I get a Veronica Lake from you-and your Marilyn picture in your kitchen.