Christopher Hall

Obama is President. I accept that and I truly wish him well. But to pretend that all questions re his birth place have been resolved is preposterous. His campaing presented an alleged copy of a Certificate of Live Birth with respect to which some people have raised significant questions. If his birth records reflect US citizenship, why has the Governor of Hawaii ordered them to be sealed? When the government says that everything is legal, but refuses to let you see the records (this should sound a little familiar to those of us in this forum), I get suspicious. Why didn't the Obama campaign ask the Governor to reverse her position or, for that matter, not oppose the lawsuit seeking review of the original birth records? I have practiced law for 26 years, and my experience is that people willingly reveal (usually chase the other side around with) exculpatory documents and that they frequently go to great (and sometimes illegal) lengths to suppress incriminating evidence. If the Pa. lawyer behind this litigation is a crackpot, why not reveal him to a fool by agreeing to produce the evidence which proves Obama's birth on US soil. If it's a simple matter, why did the Governor of Hawaii order the records to be sealed? And I don't care about the messenger (e.g. right wing radio, the governor is a Republican, etc.). I am interested in the truth, and all of us should be.

John- Has this letter been authenticated in any way? Have you seen a copy of it? Was it produced in response to a FOIA request? The proximity in time of his death and the deaths of Giancana, Roselli, Hoffa and others are a little too coincidental to be unrelated. Hoffa's disappearance preceded the existence of the HSCA, but the others didn't. They are kind of like the "suicide" of Abe "Kid Twist" Reles, a mob informer, about 50 years earlier. Not many people think he voluntarily exited the window of the high-rise apartment where he was being held in protective custody. Thanks. Chris

Those who thought that a new Democratic controlled Congress and a new administration in the White House will redirect Congress and the Courts towards such important issues as the release of JFK and MLK assassination records and a Federal Grand Jury into the assassination and the destruction of records will be disapointed. A Federal Grand Jury has been conviened, to consider the prosection of a baseball player for perjury in his testimony of the use of steroids, and the new chairman of the House Reform and Oversight Committee, responsible for FOIA and JFK Act enforcement has made his priorities clear. With Henry Waxman moving on to chair another committee, the House Oversight and Reform committee will now be chaired by Rep. Edolphus Towns (D.NY), who has said that he intends to hold hearings on the most important issue in the world today - a national playoff for NCAA college football. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...-hearings_N.htm So much for the new government reforms. BK Well, I can certainly say that MY expectations have been met.

This is a great read on the mafia's domination of Cuban gambling and, to a certain extent, politics prior to the seizure of power January 1, 1959 by the July 26 revolutionaries. It focuses primarily on Meyer Lansky's role, with only a modest treatment of Santo Trafficante's involvement. I need to read Scott Deitche's second book (I have read his first one on organized crime in Tampa), which addresses Trafficante. Nonetheless, it is a well-researched treatment of a very elusive mob figure, whom I find to be fairly facinating. We seem to take it as a fact that the mob controlled Cuban gambling operations when discussing the Cuban political dynamic in the context of the JFK assassination, but it is nice to know some of the specifics. The book is well-written and easy to read.

The media response (as well as the response of Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller) is that Panetta lacks intelligence experience for the job, which may or may not be true. That is rather ironic, though, because I believe that GHWB testified in around 1975 by denying that he had any intelligence background when he was being considered for the same job, notwithstanding the JEH Memo from around 11/24/63 in which JEH acknowledges that George Bush, of the CIA, has been briefed on these matters. That, couple with the fact that the Bay of Pigs was nicknamed Operation Zapata (like Zapata Oil Co.) and the 2 retired Navy ships used in the amphibious oberation were named the Barbara and the Houston. I think that I am correct on the above facts, but I welcome correction from any of you. But, Judge William H. Webster was picked by Gerald Ford to be FBI Director while serving as an Associate Judge on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. President Reagan picked him to serve as CAI director in around 1987.

What does everyone thing of Leon Panetta's appointment to head the CIA? I thought that he did a great job for WJC (I wish that he, and not his boss, had been POTUS). I have also always found him to be very bright and a genuinely likeable fellow. This is an interesting pick, because I would have expected someone from the CIA or military to fill this position.

Ron- What grounds does VR have to demand that anyone be place into protective custody, unless they want to be so protected? Legally, you have to demonstrate that someone is incapable of taking care of himself before a court will declare a conservatorship or guardianship. As for me, I will take a pass on any small aircraft, irrespective of who is flying it and of whom I may offend by declining the offer to fly. It's a lot of fun, as I am sure riding a Harley is, but it doesn't pass my risk-benefit test. Glad to see you posting and Merry Christmas. Chris

I read this article and, for its time, it turned out to be rather prescient. Has anyone on the forum ever done a point by point confirmation/refutation of Russell's points? He raises some issues that I don't believe I have seen addressed in other sources.

Imagine that a black politico out of Illinois dealing with a Chicago slum-lord.... I think I'll write a book! LMFAO! Say didn't the Chicago newspaper declare bankruptcy? One last print fling before the bytes take over, eh? Yes, this is great news. Especially if your hoping there is a possibility that yellow media and Republican hacks can take the assertions made here and expound on them to the point that Obama becomes, in essence, tarred by, nothing more than guilt by association, morphing into the sinister figure that, no doubt the Cheney's and Republican hacks of America would love to see him portrayed as...... With any luck maybe Cheney will become the person sworn in soon after a McCarthy Era style guilt by innuendo methodism. Then the country will really be in the toilet......... I have a great deal of confidence in Patrick Fitzgerald, and I certainly do not fear, what the truth might reveal when the smoke clears, as long as it's the truth and not a mass media political ploy to destroy Obama, just because he wants to make the country better..... Robert- I am not hoping that this matter tars Obama. As I said on several occasions, I suspect that he did nothing unlawful. I, too, think that Fitzgerald will go where the evidence takes him, and everyone, especially national Republican mouthpieces (i.e. the ones on talk TV), should shut up, let Obama be sworn in and try to move the country forward. Seeing Republicans who are still, 7 weeks after the election, running attack ads about Obama makes me conclude that they are delusional. There are few Constitutional or policy matters on which I agree with Obama, but the people selected him and he deserves the right to serve, along with his Democratic Congress. If I were a Republican Congressman or Senator, I would try to assume the role of leading the opposition against bailouts. They are immensely unpopular, they are dreadful, from a policy perspective, and I fully expect the Obama administration to continue its support for them. At this point, I am considerably more concerned about Bush bailing out another poorly run industry than I am about Cheney starting another war. Carry on.

Chris, Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, has said publicly his office “requested a brief delay of the release” of the the report. Do you think the Bush appointee indicated by the senator Obama defeated at the polls in 2004 is doing him a favor? From the WSJ article above - By delaying the release, Mr. Obama has virtually guaranteed another week of speculation about who in the Obama team discussed what with Blagojevich aides. "I would ask for your patience because I do not want to interfere with an ongoing investigation," Mr. Obama told reporters in Chicago. In a written statement released by his office late Monday, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed that he asked for the delay, saying he wanted more time to conduct interviews. "After the President-elect announced an internal transition team investigation, the United States Attorney's Office requested a brief delay of the release of a report of that investigation to conduct certain interviews," Mr. Fitzgerald said. […] Mr. Fitzgerald and other federal prosecutors often ask those affected by high-profile investigations to hold off on making public disclosures. Mr. Fitzgerald had suggested last week that his office was just beginning to interview people whose names might have come up in the secretly recorded conversations, or were also recorded. I'm not familiar with JJJ, what makes you feel that way abt him? I said that Obama will try to bury the report during Christmas week, irrespective of how long of a "brief delay" Fitzgerald requested. Let's wait and see what happens. I think that Obama may have a problem with Rahm on this from a public perception standpoint. Didn't Obama say that no one in his administration had direct contact with Blago about the Senate seat? I thought he did, but maybe I am wrong about what he said to that effect. And now it appears that Rahm, big surprise, had quite a bit of direct contact with Blago about the seat. As for Jesse, Jr., let's wait and see what happens with him as well. I made the comment I did because his father's wealth came from shaking down corporations that he was persecuting for alleged race discrimination. His father has always had a loose relationship with honesty and the truth. How do you think that Jesse's 2 brothers were awarded a much coveted Budweiser distributorship? What was their business background and thier financial capability to secure such a sought after business? Maybe Jesse, Jr. would still be an Illinois Congressman if his last name was Smith, but I doubt it.

Obama is definitely trying to bury the news during the Christmas week. I suspect that Rahm Emanuel has his fingerprints on a lot of the Senate seat replacement efforts, although I am confident that he would participate in the sale of the seat. I think that the Obama team is in panic mode about Rahm's involvement in the process - not because he has done anything illegal, but because he was knee deep in multiple conversations with Blago, who apparently was trying to sell the seat to the highest bidder. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see the extent to which Jesse Jackson, Jr.was involved in this matter. I would not be surprised about anything Jesse, Jr. would do.

Although I still doubt that Obama had any direct culpability in Blago's trying to sell the seat, it will be interesting to see how the evidence unfolds. Obama is releasing the results of his investigation next week, which means that he may try to bury the story around Christmas. Time will tell to see when and how he discloses such findings. Of course I think that Obama, through Rahm, pushed hard with Blago for Jarrett. But I doubt that Obama did anything illegal. In any event, Blago personifies the political culture in which Obama was a key player for the last 10 or so years.

I don't think that many people think that "Obama was directly involved in the mess", but it is most certainly a newsworthy event and I am glad that Don has started these threads. It appears that Rahm Emanuel was one of the persons, referred to in the FBI Affidavit, who communicated with Blago, and Rahm is currently refusing to discuss the matter with the media. Unless Rahm was assisting the govenment investigation, which could well be the case, this doesn't look good. Rahm is a very bright guy and he doesn't need ill-gotten gains, so I don't think that he was complicit in doing anything illegal. But, what he did when or if he learned of any attempted sale of the Senate seat is the issue. For all we know, Rahm could have gone straight to the FBI when he learned of Blago's illegal actions and helped the FBI make its case. Or he could have learned about an attempted felony and not gone to law enforcement. Right now, Rahm is clamming up about the matter. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obam...-121108.article It will be interesting to learn what, if anything, Rahm did. I have read that Obama friend, Chicago Democratic fundraiser extraorinaire and convicted felon Tony Rezko is singing like a canary in anticipation of his upcoming sentencing hearing, which I think takes place before the innauguration. I have also recently read that the FBI is interested in Rezko's sale of a lot (adjoinging the Obama Chicago home) to the Obamas and, specifically, whether he sold it to them at a bargain price. That is what Obama is most likely concerned about at the present. Except for the Rezko land purchase and sale, I think that, from what we now know about Obama's relationship with the reputedly tawdry Chicago political machine, he appears to have assiduously avoided most of the sleazy elements of such political dynamic. As a prominent Chicago Democrat, it would have been impossible for Obama to totally avoid some of the key players (e.g. Rezko and Blago) who are most suspect (Rezko is not suspect anymore, because he has been convicted of one or more felonies) in the local Democratic Party scene (is there another party in Chicago?), but I think that he was fairly careful. It will also be interesting to see what happens with respect to Jesse Jackson, Jr., who is apparently designated as witness no. 5.

This is encouraging. I hope that the teachers never have to use their weapons to defend their children, but at least they can do so if necessary.

Noticeably absent are E. Howard Hunt and Antonio Veciana. Do you think that they were involved?

Interesting. So many intelligence volk seem to have excellent and highly selective memories [publicly]. So many of the books about intelligence operatives were written by friends of theirs and tell the 'story' so as not to tell the full story - leaving out or twisting the 'darker' parts. Prouty and others feel quite certain Lansdale was in Dallas and seen passing the 'tramps' - if so; and if [as I and many others think] Harvey had a lot to do with setting-up and then making 'disappear' the (real) shooters - then the above takes on a new dimension. Add to that what the Seagraves have found-out about Lansdale at a different time and place. Spooky [in all senses of that term]! I thought that Bill Harvey was in Italy on November 22, 1963. Perhaps he was in Italy to the same extent that EHH was in D.C. on that date. I am kind of surprised that there has been such sparse activity on this thread since Bayard Stockton's Flawed Patriot was released. The book is and will probably remain, barring some profound turn of events, the definitive book on William Harvey. There is one flaw, in this book as far as I am concerned, and that is Stockton's consistent mention of how......upset, shocked, scandalized various CIA personnel were at the very idea that someone of the stature of William Harvey, or David A Phillips for that matter, would be considered as being involved in the assassination of JFK....... It reminds me of the scene in Casablanca, where Captain Renault, [Claude Rains] character closes down Rick's stating "I am shocked, shocked to discover gambling is taking place in this establishment." I agree with Peter that some books are written by friends, and Bayard Stockton was, by Stockton's admission, a friend and admirer of Bill Harvey. As a result, it may be a puff piece book. I wish that a more objective author would write a book on Harvey.

Interesting. So many intelligence volk seem to have excellent and highly selective memories [publicly]. So many of the books about intelligence operatives were written by friends of theirs and tell the 'story' so as not to tell the full story - leaving out or twisting the 'darker' parts. Prouty and others feel quite certain Lansdale was in Dallas and seen passing the 'tramps' - if so; and if [as I and many others think] Harvey had a lot to do with setting-up and then making 'disappear' the (real) shooters - then the above takes on a new dimension. Add to that what the Seagraves have found-out about Lansdale at a different time and place. Spooky [in all senses of that term]! I thought that Bill Harvey was in Italy on November 22, 1963. Perhaps he was in Italy to the same extent that EHH was in D.C. on that date.

I have read Bayard Stockton's biography of Bill Harvey, and I found it fairly interesting. However, Stockton was a protege and contemporary of Harvey's, so the book may be a puff piece. But, there was nothing in it whcih would imply that Bill Harvey would pursue something as unpatriotic as assassinating a sitting US President. One of the leaps of belief that one has to take, for example, in accepting St. John Hunt's version of events, which I find compelling (I might add), is the notion that Bill Harvey participated in the JFK assassination. Did Harvey suffer from intense bitterness about essentially being canned by RFK from the Castro assassination plot (or at least the "official" CIA plot) to a degree which could cause him to participate in the JFK assassination? I don't know, and there isn't much written about Harvey. And I don't think that simply maintaining his friendship with John Rosselli after he was warned by his superiors to terminate the relationship equates with having the character to assassinate the President. However, the timing of Rosselli's and Giancana's deaths (in relationship to the HSCA hearings) lead me to conclude that they may have well been actively or peripherally involved in the assassination. As a result, Harvey's continued relationship with Rosselli may be more sinister than meets the eye. I would like to know a lot more about Harvey. He is an interesting figure - I wish that I had known him.

When you say DAP "was charged" with the Leteiler assassination, do you mean that he was indicted for the murder? If so, what became of the indictment? If not, what do you mean? Thanks. Chris

This article makes Emanuel sound like a Neocon with a "D" after his name.

Emanuel is a hardline Zionist, John. His appointment merely affirms that Israel is the proud owner of US foreign policy and this is not going to change: http://www.counterpunch.org/ Weekend Edition November 7 / 9, 2008 CounterPunch Diary Hail to the Chief of Staff By ALEXANDER COCKBURN The first trumpet blast of change ushers in Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s chief of staff and gate keeper. This is the man who arranges his schedule, staffs out the agenda, includes, excludes. It’s certainly as sinister an appointment as, say, Carter’s installation of arch cold-warrior Zbigniev Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor at the dawn of his “change is here” administration in 1977. Emanuel, as Ralph Nader points out in my interview with him below, represents the worst of the Clinton years. His profile as regards Israel is explored well on this site by lawyer John Whitbeck. He’s a former Israeli citizen, who volunteered to serve in Israel in 1991 and who made brisk millions in Wall Street. He is a super-Likudnik hawk, whose father was in the fascist Irgun in the late Forties, responsible for cold-blooded massacres of Palestinians. Dad’s unreconstructed ethnic outlook has been memorably embodied in his recent remark to the Ma’ariv newspaper that "Obviously he [Rahm] will influence the president to be pro-Israel… Why wouldn't he be [influential]? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." Working in the Clinton White House, Emanuel helped push through NAFTA, the crime bill, the balanced budget and welfare reform. He favored the war in Iraq, and when he was chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 he made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates. On this site in October and November, 2006, John Walsh documented both the efforts and Emanuel’s role in losing the Democrats seats they would otherwise have won. In 2006 Emanuel had just published a book with Bruce Reed called The Plan: Big Ideas for America, with one section focused on “the war on terror”. Emanuel and Reed wrote, “We need to fortify the military's ‘thin green line ‘around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. …Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5.” Recall that Obama has been calling throughout his recent campaign for an addition of 92,000 to the US Army and US Marine Corps. Emanuel and Reed had fond words for the mad-dog Peter Beinart, neocon warrior theoretician for the Democrats, roosting Marty Peretz's The New Republic, and author of The Good Fight where Beinart explained why a tough new national security policy is as essential to the future of of progressive politics as a united front against totalitarianism and communism was to the New Deal and the Great Society. Emanuel and Reed also commended Anne-Marie Slaughter's proposal for "a new division of labor in which the United Nations takes on economic and social assistance and an expanded NATO takes over the burden of collective security." In other words, let NATO shoot the natives and the UN clean the floors. Walsh took a hard look at the 2006 Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which had elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. In 2004 Cegelis, who iwas only mildly antiwar, ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44 per cent in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in the November poll, in 2006. Enter Rahm Emanuel, who promptly dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq. Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District. Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a primary victory by a measly four percentage points. To win the House, the Dems had to win 15 seats from the Republicans. Walsh identified 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents. Of these, nine adopted a US “must win” in Iraq position and only one of Rahm's candidates was for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. Then, after the election, Walsh assessed Rahm’s supposed brilliance in winning back the House. “Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, “ Walsh wrote, “we find that 13 were defeated [including Duckworth], and only 8 won! And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60 per cent according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar. Thanks for the info, Mark. I see the Emanuel appointment as a message to the Jewish community that, contrary to popular suspicion, Obama is not a closet Muslim or a Muslim sypathizer. This pick sends a huge signal of support to Israel, and it thanks the Jews in this country for voting for Obama on a 78% basis. It will be interesting as Obama announces more appointments, but this certainly delivers a hawkish message.

the future of the GOP (Republican Party), as it currently exists? In one, short word **FINI** Well, I'll not shed a tear for them - but would add that I'd like to be able to see the same for the Democrats, as currently constituted, as well. We need new parties - likely a few new ones and proportional representation in the Congress - a whole new system and new paradigms for the new times. I don't see it in the 'cards', sadly - the Men Behind The Curtain love the 2 Party (really wings of one Corporate Business Party) System - they back both sides - so always win. This time is no different. When one of their 'horses' gets off track, they shoot horses - don't they!....... Obama knows well the limits he is confined in and doesn't seem to feel uncomfortable with the constraints. IMO.... Peter- I largely agree, but I will give Obama a little time before I cast judgment on whether he acts independently of the $604,000,000 that he received in campaign contributions. He certainly did an about face on material issues (e.g. his promise to only take public campaign funds and to pull out of Iraq on a pre-designated timetable) once he had HRC in the rear view mirror (which is a sight to behold, I might add).

John- Who were the 2 CIA agents who met with Roselli and Giancana at the Fountainnbleau Hotel? I have previously read about this meeting, but I forgot who in the CIA participated in this meeting. Chris

This just in - Caroline may be considered for an ambassadorship or other position: http://www.tmz.com/2008/11/06/the-kennedy-...-meets-the-eye/ I am not a fan of Caroline's strain of politics, but I sure had a rather enduring crush on her as a boy. This promises to be an interesting development.

I agree that the President is generally not in charge, but he (or she) should be. What we have instead is rule by committee of political advisors. So each material decision has to be vetted by the senior policy analyst in whose bailiwick it falls (e.g. someone from Foggy Bottom) and then by the President's team of political advisors. In other words, you have the President's political advisors (e.g. Karl Rove) making fundamental policy decisions (e.g. the Kennedy-McCain illegal alien amnesty bill from 2007). Because the most critical job of a first term President is getting re-elected, the role of the political handlers is even greater during the first term. Add to this mix the toxic influence of lobbying interests, and you have a complete cluster, so to speak. The chances of a real statesman emerging from this type of dynamic are thus vastly diminished.