Richard Booth

Dulles and Angleton

I think that Spike Lee most likely made the decision entirely on his own without having to be compelled. All it took for him was a moment. In one short moment, he realized what world he lived in, and what would happen to him if he continued down this path. He was smart enough to see that... but not smart enough to anticipate it before he went there. He probably heard from his publicist, saw the headlines, and it only took him a moment to realize he had made a grave mistake. A very sad state of affairs, isn't it? There are always things we are not allowed to talk about. It isn't that we'll be arrested, or killed if we do talk about certain things. And that's probably what is so infuriating about it: if we lived in some kind of dictatorship we would have a convenient way to explain the situation we are in. Instead, we live in a voluntary self-censoring thought-prison and that makes it even more disgusting. It's almost worse to live in a voluntary world of self-imposed censorship than if we were put there under an iron fist. At least with the dictatorship, the way "out" is self-evident: you resist and overthrow it, you topple the regime. But how do you escape the self-imposed prison? How do you change that?

Not before the recall, no: "The parole board’s larger staff will review the recommendation for Sirhan’s release over the next 90 days before it is sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who then has 30 days to decide on whether to grant it." If Newsom does get recalled, I wonder how long it is before he leaves office and his replacement takes over.

Only among a very small set of people, it's marginalized groups who will get behind that. The vast majority of people would view it as Newsom supporting a murderer, supporting someone who killed one of the last sympathetic Democratic politicians we've had. Of course I would support him making the decision to back the parole board's decision and think it would show courage and morality. But that's me, not the majority of California or American voters.

I was actually thinking of Democrat ads -- was thinking of what someone like Kamala Harris might have to say about it. It could harm him in the running from "friendly fire" in the running. I think that Gavin Newsom, Steve Sisolak (Nevada's governor), and Gretchen Whitmer will all probably run for President one day. Now that Cuomo is out, they've each got a chance. Newsome isn't going to wreck that chance over Sirhan Sirhan

100% Perhaps the best example of operational use of MK/ULTRA / ARTICHOKE / BLUEBIRD techniques

When every major newspaper in the country shares a consensus, and every history book says Sirhan killed RFK, then it's very easy to believe that. Most people go with what the papers and history books say. If you don't, you're a "conspiracy theorist" His brother RFK Jr. is widely viewed as a lunatic crackpot. He knows that's what he gets if he looks deeper.

Newsome definitely has ambitions for higher office. Because he's a scumbag, he won't do anything that could be viewed as a liability to himself ... and supporting Sirhan's release can only be a liability to him. Even if he says "I support the system, let their will be done" that will be construed as supporting Sirhan Sirhan. It would be political suicide--he would only gain points among far-left radical progressives and marginalized groups. No gains anywhere else. For the vast majority of moderates and average liberals he certainly gains nothing, and it will give conservatives ammo to use against when he runs for President. Last thing he wants to see is the campaign TV commercial with pictures of RFK's corpse lying on the kitchen floor and having that tied to his insincere smiling face.

He probably knows next to nothing about the case.

Reading the news stories on this case and many of them mention that Sirhan "confessed" or "plead guilty" or they'll say he has "expressed remorse" -- one of them even characterized his supporters (RFK Jr. or Paul Schrade) as people who have "forgiven Sirhan" Nowhere is there any mention of the specifics of the case, coroner Noguchi's findings, or the fact that Sirhan is innocent of the crime. It's presented as if there is no doubt among anyone on this. If you know the facts of the case, when you read these stories the level of deception is striking and appalling. This is journalism?

If Newsome begins to realize that he is going to be recalled and his once-loyal political cronies are not going to save him from that, he might make a rash decision simply due to his ego being insulted. In that respect, the recall effort could serve as a catalyst for Newsome to do the right thing. Let's hope his cronies abandoned him and he's insulted.

The public and politics are not as nuanced as K&K. To them, this is a question of "do we let out of prison the man who blew RFK's brains out?" -- and if the answer is YES, whether or not you press that position with "I simply stand by their decision, that's all" doesn't matter. That decision will have broad negative political implications for whomever makes it. The only way this plays out is if Gavin Newsome realizes that his political career is already over, and he's free to do anything he wants to do without respect for whatever the ramifications are. Should he view himself in this position he's free to make a bold choice. I don't think he will view himself in this way, I think he probably views himself as a figure in a dynasty and his legacy will not be one of being ousted from office and replaced by Larry Elder, and certainly he isn't going to destroy his future over RFK's designated killer.

Leaves us in a pretty dooky situation you ask me. One where we're all not allowed to talk about the elephant in the living room. Far as I'm concerned it's goddamn obvious what happened here, but I'm not allowed to talk about it without marginalizing myself. So I typically don't talk about it.

I imagine there are probably a lot of people who know there are things inherently wrong with the 9/11 narrative, but they also know they can't say anything about it without committing career suicide.

HA HA HA. Look at how quickly he reeled that back in. He's already cut half an hour from the episode and is being quoted backpedaling. Guess for a minute there he forgot what world he's living in, and forgot what is and is not acceptable to believe.

I'd like to see Kamala Harris asked about this. Curious to know just how horrifying her response would be.

The are certain things you are and are not allowed to believe when you are a politician. One of those things is whether or not RFK (or JFK for that matter) were assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, or were carried out by lone nuts. Only one of these positions is acceptable and tolerated among elected officials, and we know which one of those positions that is. At the end of the day, no politician is going to stand up and say the equivalent of "The man who shot RFK's brains out should be let out of prison" much less will he say "He didn't do it" Won't happen In the world of politics you are either an official narrative team player, or you're a dangerous crackpot. That's what it comes down to. Gavin Newsome isn't about to put the Iver Johnson in his mouth and pull the trigger.

I don't for a minute believe that Gavin Newsome will do that... He knows whats good for him...

Sirhan was granted parole, but there is no way Gavin Newsome is going to allow this to happen. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/27/us/sirhan-sirhan-parole-rfk-assassination/index.html I think he should be paroled because he didn't do it.

David -- I tried to send you a message just now and the forum says "David Andrews cannot receive messages" Any idea what is going on here? Can you send me your email address? I need to get back to you regarding something we previously discussed.

Yup -- source is Leonnig whho it is worth noting is an award winning journalist and has Secret Service sources, recently having written a book about the Secret Service. (Zero Fail) However, you know, I wouldn't be too quick to certify her as credible. Just because she's won an award I don't think that necessarily means anything, and as I understand it her Secret Service book sucked. Another thing that causes me some level of pause here is she's got two books coming out almost simultaneously. Which, to me, being a writer, tells me that one of them she didn't go real deep on (which I believe is the Secret Service book) and the other one looks like a rushed money-grab, just one of many post-Trump "tell all" books to try to capitalize on the 1/6 events and dumpster fire that is Donald Trump. https://news.yahoo.com/mike-pence-refused-car-amid-190922983.html

Sounds like he was an early critic and chronicler of the FBI, did a good amount of scholarly research. It could be said that he did some work on COINTELPRO, based on what David wrote here. I'd say that's a "conspiracy" that everyone has heard of or is one of the better known conspiracies these days rather than characterize it as smaller stuff. At the time he was working on it though, surely it was little known. I would characterize the guy as a historian who focused early-on on FBI excesses which are today well documented but not so much at the time.

I'm not sure. I first heard it in 2016, my partner at the time used it. She was 24 and I hadn't heard it before. She told me that I was "woke" and not in a derogatory way. I think it started out as a non-derogatory term and has morphed. I'm gonna say the kids started it and now the old fogeys use it in a sneering manner.

Well, that is where we are today. Of course it is absurd, but nevertheless it's where we are. Let us wait for the "woke" CIA version which like it's recent recruitment ad will surely feature latinx and lgbt folks attesting to their newfound comprehensive understanding of the single bullet theory, with a diverse range of culturally-sensitive shills whose gender and racial identity surely trumps the expertise of Cyril Wecht or David Mantik. After all, those are just evil white men.

I would have liked to have heard the guy who did PBS Frontline for many years. That's the kind of narration I like. But what I like doesn't necessarily help the documentary get traction or followers or interest. Goldberg has sway with millions and regular people, the kind who watch "The View" will probably be swayed a great deal by hearing her on this thing.