Lawrence Schnapf

Joe Bauer- First- you would never get on the jury because you would not pass muster of the defense counsel. With respect to Fox losing this case, you apparently dont know how difficult it is to prevail against a news organization in a defamation lawsuit. The plaintiff's have to demonstrate the news organization acted with malice and that is very difficult standard to meet. Fox has a great legal team and you can be assurred that they will introduce enough evidence to prevent this standard from being met. That is why Murdoch and the hosts are testifiying the way they did in their depositions. And the damages plaintiffs are seeking are quite inflated. All this case will do is do reinforce the reputational risk that Fox has in your part of the bubble. The other bubble (its audience) wanted the editorial spin that the prime time hosts were offering the audience. They will continue to watch Fox for all the news they want to watch. I personally hope that SCOTUS overturns the Sullivan case so that it will not be necessary to prove malice. It protects all kinds of wacky "journalism" like the National Enquirer, Midnight Globe, etc. It is not the standard in England and might improve the quality of journalism since they will have to be more diligent. BTW- the necessity of establishing malice is why the published settling the defamation lawsuit filed by agent Hickey was so revealatory that the theory that he accidentally killed the president was pure fiction. The publisher settled even after the plaintiff blew ifs statute of limitation. Givent the high standard for proving malice, there is no way a publisher who thought it had the book that solved the crime of the century would have settled. Legal fees to prevail wou d have been minimal- FWIW

only to half the country. dont drink the Koolaid from your favorite MSNBC host. Fox will not lose the lawsuit.

If anyone has requested suspected JFK records from NARA and were told to either use FOIA or got no response, send me a note.

Tom Gram- we have a few more tricks up our sleeve before oral argument. stay tuned :)

@Leslie Sharp ethically, it is more problematic for an attorney to suborn perjury which is what many of the WC staff attorneys effectively did.

lots of witnesses were never deposed. Warren approved the use of unrecorded initial interviews so the attorney staff could interview witnesses and if they didnt like what they were saying or appeared that they would not be compliant in modifying their accounts, there was no "record" of those interviews. Just another quiver for them to use to manufacture a false history record.

another example of how the historic record was manipulated. When Helms and McCone testified before the WC, Dulles was the principal examiner. he was asking them questions about what the CIA knew about Oswald in Russia-when he was the CIA director!! He gave them leading questions to put the blame on State Department. Only in the Seinfeldian Bizzarro world of the WC could the man who ran the agency and knew the answers be in a position of asking his successors about events that occurred on his watch!

@Gerry Down yes- that is the book. I have many of the opinions.

Harold filed half a dozen or so lawsuits in the 1970s and early 1980s. created some good FOIA law and actually prompted an amendment to the FOIA law enforcement exemption that narrowed this exemption. Some of the litigation materials are on the Weisberg Archives. Wrone published a great book on some of these cases.

The preface to volume 1 contains the disclaimer that obviously coule be used for substantive changes. There were many ways that testimony was influenced. For example, Pre-deposition interviews to review testimony where WC attorneys told witnesses their recollection was wrong. Tellling witnesses they risked federal perjury charges if they testified differently than their altered 302 reports Giving the autopsy report to Parkland doctors before their testimony thus poisoning their memories or at least causing them to question their memories and align with the autopsy report going off the record during deposition when witness veered off the preferred path ignoring inconvenient responses asking doctors to answer hypotheticals containing facts WC wants to be affirmed asking the black witnesses if they had ever been in trouble with law enforcement

I really wish that all of you debating each other about who is or is not acting in good faith direct this energy towards contacting the chairs of the 5 House Committees where the Schweikert bill has been referred and ask them to co-sponsor the bill and hold oversight hearings on the JFK Act. That is how you could be helpful. this ongoing debate is nothing more than mental masturbation. The relevant House Committees are Oversight, Intelligence, Judicary, Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs. The relevant Senate Committees are Homeland Security, Intelligence and Judiciary. Let's use this forum to produce action, not hot air. we need help to generate pressure on congress.

Joe, I dont believe anyone is elevating Tucker to "hero" status. we are simply grateful he is bringing criticism to the official position on the JFK assassination to 3.4 viewers, and very disappointed that other network hosts are picking up the mantle. I am the only person on this thread who is having frequent conversations with his production staff. I am telling you that his production staff is passionate about the JFK assassination. Regardless of how you feel about Fox, it has been the only network to consistently question the WC. On the 50th anniversary, only Fox had an in-depth program questioning the official conclusion with John Orr playing a critical role. On the JFK assassination, Fox is an ally. You cannot dispute this. Instead of wasting our time on this thread, why dont you re-direct your energy to your favored hosts on other networks and ask them to start airing programming. I am working on the opposition brief to the government's motion to dismiss the MFF complaint. I dont have time to waste on Joe's anti-Fox polemics. Until another network or host steps up, this is the only show in town.

Joe- you're wasting our time with these long political polemics. The reality is that Tucker is the only host continuing to discuss JFK assassination records issues in prime time. You have made it clear you dont trust him or his network. I dont have time to read your backward looking posts that add nothing to this discussion which is a forward-looking strategic and tactical discussion.

Pat- we did get some good coverage in december but that was very unusual. we were hopeful this might have reflected a change in attitude but only Tucker has followed up.

Kirk- I think I'm fairly politically savvy having worked on several national presidential political campaigns and doing lots of lobbying in New York. Regarding the media, as a former journalist, i ask lots of questions and am a quick learner. Also, i've frequently appeared on radio, broadcast TV and cable so I have first hand experience with how these shows are produced. I would agree with you that most established media types are not going to risk their careers or suffer ridicule by adopting a view that is not consistent with the official version of the assassination. That being said, there are some brave individuals who talk truth to power. Maddow promoted herself as such but when it came to JFK assassination, she strongly defended the official position and referred to it to dismiss other scandals. In my view, she does not get a Mulligan. It is one thing to privately harbor views but quite another to publicly support the WC as Matthews and Maddow. MSNBC viewers should hold her accountable. We KNOW from the Walter Sheridan incident that NBC has withheld assassination records from the JFK Collection and we know from Baldwin that the network policy is to publicly support the official conclusion. Moreover, when a researcher wants to use NBC footage of the assassination, the network charges them 15 cents a second- and that is the educational fee!!! (In contrast, CBS handed over the bulk of its assassination-related materials to NARA) Maddow's and Matthews' broadcast comments reflect the cancer that pervades NBC when it comes to the assassination. The network should be called out at every opportunity for persisting in spreading this disinformation about the assassination. and at some point, adults have to take responsibility for their views and not blame them on childhood experiences or parental influence.

Pat- she spoke with strong conviction and is too smart to not know there are many questions for numerous reasons about the WC conclusions. Either she believes the official report or is-as Baldwin suggested- simply reciting the official NBC position.

it was Rachel Maddow's support of the WC conclusions that led me to ask Baldwin to explain how this could happen.

BTW- i was the one who alerted Tucker's producer and researcher to Schweikert's bill so was very pleased they had him on the show even if it was only for 2 minutes. As a follow-up, I got the email address of the senior legislative staffer for the House Oversight Committee from my contact on the democratic side. I sent the senior staffer an email asking him to urge the chair to hold a hearing on Justice for Kennedy Act and also on the failure of the executive branch to comply with the JFK Act. Likewise, I obtained the email of Schweikert's legislative staffer and sent him an email congratulating him on the bill and offering some suggestions to address some of the other issues with the JFK Act that were covered by the Justice for Kennedy Act. will keep you posted.

How about we look forward and not backwards when it comes to Tucker? We can all agree he's said and supported some crazy stuff. However, he has been the only network host willing to address the JFK Act. His show has 3.4 viewers and has the attention of the GOP House leaders. Until another network host has the courage to take on this issue, Tucker remains our best hope...and friend on this issue. Politics can make strange bedfellows. this is the situation we have so far,

Joe Bauer- I understand you don't like the man and don't trust he is acting in good faith. But you otherwise seem like a fair-minded person. The fair thing to do is instead of bashing Tucker because of your anticipated "what if's", is to suspend your judgement and see what happens. Based on my experience with his staff and producer, he seems to be legitimately interested in the JFK assassination. If it turns out that this is just a charade, I'll be the first to admit it.

All that matter is if Tucker can get the House to hold an oversight hearing on the JFK Act.

Paul et al- I interviewed Alec Baldwin in 2017 at the dinner event following the mock trial. I asked him why Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and other MSNBC hosts appeared to support the official conclusions and disparaged Lee Oswald. He revealed that he was told by senior producers at NBC that it was the policy of the network to support the Warren Commission findings. He was told this after a 50th anniversary show he had arranged to air on his Friday night show was cancelled by NBC. NBC refused to release the Walter Sheridan files and the Darnell film to the ARRB. Tunheim was so angered by the network's obstruction that he had the ARRB legal counsel prepare a subpoena. However, the Clinton DOJ declined to serve the subpoena. My liberal friends, we are living in Seinfeld Bizzarro world where it is the roles of the parties have been reversed. The DNC is now defending the law enforcement and national security institutions against "conspiracy theories" while the GOP is pressing for full disclosure. Your heads may be exploding and the thought may give you indigestion but the GOP may be our best route to get an oversight hearing. I suspect if we had a Republican president, the Senate might be more amendable to holding an oversight hearing so they could embarrass the sitting president. If any of you have good contacts with Senate leadership, perhaps you can change the current dynamics.

100% agree on materials outside the collection. the ARRB wen out of business in 1998 but its work was not done. I will be speaking with Schweikert's office next week.

@Tom- good point. would be good if the bill refers to the regulatory definition of "assassination records" (the ARRB definition). Lack of enforcement tool is one of the tweaks I will be suggesting to representative Schweikert. I have the email of his top staffer.

George Govus- the bill does eliminate the Deed of Gifts exemption but you are right that it does impose any new obligations on private parties holding assassination records. Of course, the ARRB and now NARA as the "successor in function" could issue a subpoena to NBC. The ARRB had prepared one for the Walter Sheridan papers but the Clinton DOJ declined to serve it. In the Senate, the chair of the Oversight Committee is Gary Peters and the ranking member is Rand Paul. we need to start sending them missives.....