Paul Brancato

And so it is pretty much everywhere.

Perhaps the kind of guy who has his hands tied, who is not a free agent because of the skeletons in his closet. As for trump, I’ve been wondering if Roger stone ever commented on his ‘if you saw what I saw’ decision.

Roger - really good post.

What part of the phone call did Schiff use as a basis for impeachment? Btw I thought it was an offensive conversation, carefully worded by both Trump and Zelensky full of craven butt kissing and subtle messages. Assuming that the notes taken (btw this isn’t a transcript) are accurate Trump did not say ‘don’t call me I’ll call you’ but it seems like a minor point. Do you have more on Schiff’s use of that phrase? Some context would be good. As you say the conversation was about the fired prosecutor, and the implication is that he was fired because he was onto Hunter Biden and the Dems put pressure on him to stop. This occurred during Trump’s reign. How exactly do you imagine that Zelensky fired him due to pressure by Dems to protect Joe or Hunter Biden? Maybe he was just corrupt. Meanwhile, what did the new Zelensky appointment find? William - technically it’s true as you point out that Mueller was stonewalled. But even you would have to admit that his presentation was really wimpy, so it’s hard to blame folks when they say he found no wrongdoing. Mueller had a choice how he would speak publicly, and I find the choice he made rather insufferable.

I can’t watch now, but are you saying that Trump’s position now is that if he becomes president again he will establish a commission to open up the records?

I’m also a Bernie democrat. I’m a Bernie Democrat too. I think southern whites feared blacks, as they now fear immigrants, would take their jobs. It seems that they harbor resentment towards the political system for abandoning them. I agree completely that there are many good Democrats and few good Republicans. But they often lead desperate lives, which makes it more difficult to make subtle political observations. There is a deep well of anger which Trump taps into.

I agree that this is the proper context in which to view today’s Republican movement, the genesis of it. Having said that, I still think we make a mistake when we conflate the voting public who support Trump and the broader Republican agenda with the Koch brothers and their ilk who are funding this turn to the right. The constituency is broad, and some of it is certainly racist, homophobic, anti - Semitic, Christian fundamentalist. But there’s a huge swath of the public that is reeling from the long term effects of Capitalist driven globalism designed to make the rich richer still. If trickle down economics resulted in a river of support for the working class in their daily lives I’d be all for it. But instead what we see is a continuous attack on them, denying them adequate education, health care, housing, jobs. That’s the fodder that puts the current Republican Party on equal footing with the multi cultural Democratic Party. And to blame these less privileged citizens, to demonize them for supporting Trump, misses the essential point that they have been grievously injured by these long standing policies of favoritism for the rich. It doesn’t matter who caused it, it matters how they feel about it. Today’s Democratic Party is not their hero, despite the rhetoric. Globalism didn’t have to be so devastating. It’s a good idea in theory. But who benefits? Cheap goods from overseas doesn’t mitigate the loss of quality of life.

Thanks - I missed the translation. The use of phrases like ‘according to certain statements’ leaves one wondering who made those statements. Perhaps Walker himself? I feel it’s important to remember that no statements by Walker on Oswald and RFK are known to exist until after Nov 22, even though they refer to an event many months previous.

Ben - from your point of view which has Oswald as being somehow involved in the JFK plot, without referring to other researchers or theories, who is that Oswald? Is he an Intel asset with a Marxist assumed persona, or is he as his Russian friend says an earnest political left leaning idealist thinker? Or both, or something else?

Trejo was singularly focused on Walker but never acknowledged Walker’s connections and preferred to see the assassination as an outside job. In any case, during my exchanges with him I looked at Walker’s post assassination life. I don’t remember anymore how I know this, but from what I could tell Walker did in fact repeat his assertions about Oswald and RFK over several years. It is certain that Walker was obsessed with RFK, who had him arrested. So it makes sense he would conflate RFK and LHO. Would someone translate the NZ article and post it? I am away from my books for a while but I have the lengthy tome on Walker called General Walker and the murder of President Kennedy, so perhaps this book details Walker’s obsession with Oswald. There is a more recent book which I have not read called The Insurrectionist by Peter Adams.

So the question remains who alleged that RFK protected Oswald? And when? The article is talking about the Walker shooting but is writing about it after the JFK assassination.

Walker never stopped repeating that tale about Oswald being protected by RFK. Do you by chance have a link to the NZ article?

Doesn’t make it true. More likely a peek at something cooking behind the scenes.

But it was crucial to those that set Oswald up as the designated patsy. Why would the unnamed reporter think it plausible that Oswald, accused of murdering JFK, would also have shot at Walker?

Probably twice that.