On 10/4/2024 at 11:20 PM, Pat Speer said:

He was a public servant for the city of New Orleans and could not investigate the case if he didn't pursue Shaw, since Ferrie and Bannister were dead. Many researchers and onlookers at the time assumed he was pursuing Shaw even though he didn't believe his involvement, because he was hoping to publicize the problems with the lone-nut scenario and unveil a conspiracy.  

I am ambivalent about this possibility. If true, it was wrong for Garrison to pursue Shaw with such vigor. BUT...it can not be doubted that Shaw had CIA ties and quite possibly ties to Ferrie and Oswald, and failed to be forthcoming about all this. And it can not be doubted that Garrison's investigation created a response from Washington--which proved that the government had not earnestly investigated the case the first time and was actively involved in a propaganda campaign/cover-up. 

So the eyes of history will be kind to Garrison, IMO, even if he was a bit of a charlatan/wackadoodle. 

Getting back to the topic of Garrison. I think Pat encapsulates my view on Garrison here. 2 chief suspects in the plot had died and by the time Ferrie died Garrison was already very publicized and felt he had to go through with his prosecution  of Clay Shaw, who although he has international business ties to the CIA*. I think Garrison can  ethically can be assailed for.** 

From what I've seen, there is a difference between Di Eugenio and Talbot involving the Garrison case involving Walter Sheridan. Sheridan had extensive intelligence ties to the  CIA, NSA and FBI (where he had disagreements with JEH over his anti communist stance to the detriment of prosecution of Organized Crime) when he was recruited by RFK in 1957 before he became  AG.  After RFK, stepped down from AG and became Senator,  Sheridan took a job at NBC , at the height of Operation Mockingbird and produced the NBC special "The JFK Conspiracy, The case of Jim Garrison." 

Jim Di sees   Sheridan,  with his intelligence ties as a plant to divert and fool AG RFK away from the Garrison investigation. Which is sort of consistent with Jim Di's view of the Kennedy's being Little Red Riding Hood consistently being betrayed by their own appointments and the Washington Power structure in general, until their end. Ok, IMO!

Talbot cites an interview with Sheridan's wife after his death that RFK knew exactly what he was doing, had implicit trust in Sheridan*** , admired his intelligence background and both wanted to prosecute his brother's death when he got elected President. Sheridan was assigned to look into Garrison's case and determined it was weak and a potential  embarrassment and impediment to RFK's future prospects of prosecution, and at the time, he turned out to be right.

* Richard Helms, former Director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service (DCS) of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly from Latin America.  Which puts him in a class of an estimated 150,000 businessmen and journalists. I always notice people bring up Shaw's ties to the Permindex corporation, which infers a great internationalist globalist plot to kill JFK that I completely reject. Are we to assume everybody who may not have liked JFK's politics or have directly or indirectly profited from JFK's death was part of the conspiracy?

**It would seem even Oliver Stone acknowledged this in his script, with Kevin Costner telling Donal Sutherland "I really don't have much of a case."  He didn't have to write that in. 

***Interesting, I now see RFK and Sheridan were born on the very same day!

Here's Sheridan's NBC special. I couldn't find it on youtube. But got it from DVP's site.

You can draw your own conclusions.

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-conspiracy-case-of-jim-garrison.html

Ok Ok, I know it's not completely fair. But it makes up for it's lack of fairness with it's dark humor!

13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bill Brown has a problem calling Operation Mockingbird guano in relation to the possibility Fred's book could be perceived by some as a Mockingbird type effort, sponsored by them or not.

He calls a reference to Jim DiEugenio's work, by name, tripe. 

He doesn't see any difference and now calls me a hypocrite for warning him about it.  

That was a curious response. So make Brown the issue, for simply asking the question Ron?

I see you're a free speech absolutist!    heh heh

Joe was asked the question. As a researcher, don't you have any curiosity if Joe thinks  Tippit was shooting at JFK from behind the grassy knoll? Well I sure would!

Joe if that's true, could you tell us how you came to that conclusion?

5 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

IMO W. was clearly referring to Fred in person, calling Fred´s reaction guano cfr.  :

"Geez...more guano from Operation Mockingbird Redux.   Can we get another Education Forum clean up on Aisle Litwin?"

That´s an insult, no matter how I look at it, you can cover it, it still stinks (the guano).

 

 

 

I agree Jean Paul, That is a very insulting response. Particularly from a moderator.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

I'll stand by my inference, based on James DiEugenio's detailed analysis of Mr. Litwin's published JFKA propaganda during the past six years,

You have to keep in mind W. Most of us don't necessarily worship everything Jim says. Much less, use it for an excuse to insult another member.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

John Simkin wanted McAdams and his ilk to become members of this forum, so that their ARGUMENTS could be challenged and possibly destroyed. That was the purpose of this forum--an all-hands-on-deck-let's hash-this-out-and-get-somewhere forum where a wide variety of arguments could be discussed. He grew discouraged, however, over time, by the prevalence among some to attack those with whom they disagreed or had a problem. As stated, he DEFENDED John McAdams when I thought I found some dirt on the guy. 

So, no, he didn't want to lure McAdams here to play GOTCHA! He wanted McAdams here to discuss issues regarding the Kennedy assassination. A key part of the forum at the beginning was a section in which authors could come and discuss their books. This dried up rather quickly because most members chose to fill these threads with "Somebody told me" and "Somebody else said" type stuff, and the authors were forced to discuss what others had said and not their own books. 

So, long story short. John would not have subjected members to questions about their motivations, and would have instead focused on questions about their ideas. The forum rule about questioning people's background was designed not just for the benefit of LNers, but everyone. John had seen how people such as Tink Thompson and myself were routinely attacked by people such as Fetzer as CIA defenders for simply disagreeing with their batshit claims. If you claimed the evidence failed to support that the limo came to a complete stop in the plaza you were a CIA puppet or shill. If you failed to support that Lee Harvey Oswald was photographed on the front steps in the Altgens photo--but that the photo was altered in a secret CIA lab hidden amongst the cars in the depository parking lot to disguise his face--you were a CIA puppet or shill. And so on. It was nauseating. So a rule was needed. 

And it works both ways. I'd had many talks with some of the most famous researchers by that time and the consensus was that, if anyone among the research community was put here to disrupt, embarrass, and discredit us, it was not someone like McAdams, but someone like Fetzer. 

SO...do we really wanna open that door--where we make it okay to accuse our fellow CTs of being sent here to disrupt? And have the forum collapse onto itself in an orgy of finger-pointing? And make a joke of John Simkin's dream?

So let's do some fact checking.

The title of W's thread is "John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist" sort of invoking this forum "Faith of our father's " argument to justify his IMO, Witch hunt accusations.

So Pat is directly refuting W's characterization and says that was never Simkin's  viewpoint .

So W. what direct evidence do you have that Simkin thought that McAdams was a CIA propagandist??

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 Are we now forbidden from even discussing putative CIA propaganda on Simkin's Education Forum?

Oh so you're a victim now W.?

It's you who is sticking your butt into everybody else's business and trying to ensure forum "hegemony."

I'll tell you what I saw.

IMO, The Litwin thread had the makings of a good hearty discussion concerning Garrison. Then  a number of LNers and neutralists voiced approval of Litwin's (who IMO has  spent a couple of years just slinking around here and not contributing anything) "coming out." Then W. progressively poisons the atmosphere with first innuendo then more direct accusations of his opposition being sponsored by the CIA. 

So at last we get some hint that Litwin's prepared to discuss these issues. And there was some debate as Jim gets actively involved attacking Litwin and his previous statements and associations, and Litwin responds in kind with a bunch of links, which is fair game for both if we could eventually center the discussion on specific points. 

While the bulk of your comments W. were involving "Operation Mockingbird" . How did we get on that? Because you're implying the opposition are paid disinformation agents! Then  the thread becomes hijacked  because a number of people, including myself become concerned about your overstepping, and we spent 15 pages trying to debate if this discussion can happen at all. This is simply not your job as moderator.

And while there were some good discussions about that, that unfortunately I don't think will go anywhere, that was clearly not the intention of the thread.

Hey what can I say? I was brought up to hate the Dodgers. I'm rooting for the Padres, who evened their series at 1-1 with a 10-2 win last night . 

There's no love lost as we see here . So first everyone thought this was a home run!

I've never been sure what the ground rules are in Dodger Stadium! If he didn't catch it, why wouldn't it be 8 counts of fan interference?

"Why? The Padres are brash, yes, but both sides were feisty — San Diego hitters celebrating home runs … and Dodgers fans throwing objects on the field in retaliation, causing an 11-minute delay in the seventh inning. San Diego hit two more homers after the delay. There is plenty of backstory between these teams this year.

The best part of the game, though, might have been Jurickson Profar’s home-run robbery in the first inning — and his subsequent xxxxx:"

To answer Roe's question. I'm not an LN'er and  I myself have been accused of being CIA! First I was accused of being a "CIa rooter" by Brancato then more recently I was badgered by Cotter about my having some imagined CIA liaison in Romania! The only thing that may have set these ideas going in his head is that I did mention being on a trip to Southern Europe and the Balkans a couple of years ago. And that's all it takes..                                       But has anyone asked Di Eugenio if the Russians have approached him? heh heh I don't think so. 

From what I've seen coming into this cold 10 years ago, without any direct conspiracy online experience. There's definitely tendencies for some Cter's to think they're doing very important(even God's )work and the idea that very evil  CIA or government forces are monitoring  them  and maybe planting agents to counteract their work could be very  appealing to them. Particularly in the last 7 years with the advent of Trump.. So it's not uncommon to hear suspicions about that. But as Pat has said, they're too nuts to be paid disinformation agents.

Morrow is right,  there is a frightful insecurity about defending topics such as Rose Cheramie, because it's seen as a "JFK conspiracy given" now. Whether that's merited or not. 

I'm no expert on Rose Cheramie. I read about it first many years ago. But to get seasonal about it, it's really not a home run IMO. Certainly now it's been way too long. It involves too many people with too much hearsay and relies on people with no real certainty of honesty or credibility, and requires a lot of acceptance. But I don't begrudge anybody for their opinion on it.

I'd only caution that most of these sort of  stories  have a "low hanging fruit" aspect to it. Like we're to assume that everybody passing in and out of the Carousel Club got wind of a plot to kill the President? Can anybody keep their mouth shut?

And that's why we're still puzzled about who killed JFK after 60 years?

On one level, everyone marvels at say, the CIA pulling this off. But then lunges at these very amateurish flubs?.

Am I to assume that this sort of relinquishing of control to amateurs is rationalized because they are just assets on  a "need to know basis?" If so, it's a real loose way to pull off an assassination! Just too much left to chance!

Those are just my thoughts.

2 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

I also despise Peggy Noonan.  She and all the others associated with Reagan are partly responsible for the current mess.

I think Noonan is hoping that Harris will go back to the same old - same old Republican Lite Democratic Party approach and trying to nudge her that way.

Yeah Bill , Peggy Noonan always reminded me of Republican mothers when I grew up in the 50's and 60's. Always dressed to the 9's, wearing lots of jewelry! Sometimes driving Cadillacs. It would seem the impression they  always wanted to leave is that they were "classy broads" above the fray!

As far as the Polly vote. It seems like, at least at this stage,  it keeps coming back to Pennsylvania. If Harris wins there, she's got it, but by the slimmest historical margin. Which will certainly bring trouble, but maybe it's good to deal with it, for once and for all. 

Often just before the election there's a 2-3% run to one candidate. I think that run is more likely to be for Harris.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He was a public servant for the city of New Orleans and could not investigate the case if he didn't pursue Shaw, since Ferrie and Bannister were dead. Many researchers and onlookers at the time assumed he was pursuing Shaw even though he didn't believe his involvement, because he was hoping to publicize the problems with the lone-nut scenario and unveil a conspiracy.  

I am ambivalent about this possibility. If true, it was wrong for Garrison to pursue Shaw with such vigor. BUT...it can not be doubted that Shaw had CIA ties and quite possibly ties to Ferrie and Oswald, and failed to be forthcoming about all this. And it can not be doubted that Garrison's investigation created a response from Washington--which proved that the government had not earnestly investigated the case the first time and was actively involved in a propaganda campaign/cover-up. 

So the eyes of history will be kind to Garrison, IMO, even if he was a bit of a charlatan/wackadoodle. 

Hey Robert, Pat. The rules were you're not suppose to fact check!

heh

Sorry, just joking!

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

What's most deplorable about your MAGA spam is the way that Republican sleazeballs-- including Donald Trump and Elon Musk-- have tried to politicize the Hurricane Helene tragedy with the kind of disinformation you are propagating.

W's completely right here Karl. There are a few hundred people dead and thousands of people homeless and destruction everywhere.  And i understand you're not too sophisticated and probably just latched on to the first thing you could find on twitter. But the way Trump has behaved trying to stir animosity toward the government among suffering people is really unconscionable.

I know you probably think the American Government and their agencies  like the CIA are infallible, like many people around the world. But really the government isn't that effective in combating a  natural disaster this large, and people's lives in some cases don't return to any sort of normalcy for years.

Just at a time when a nation should be emphasizing unity. Again  all these suffering people are just pawns in Trump's political game. It never used to be like this.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jonathan,

     Do you deny that CIA-affiliated propagandists have been active in the U.S. mainstream media, and on social media?

     Was William Colby lying to the Church Committee about CIA Operation Mockingbird?

     How about John McAdams?

 

     

W.If the CIA Mockingbird establishment has invested so much money (since the 1950s) in mainstream media propaganda, are we supposed to believe that they wouldn't spend money on 21st century internet propagandists?

W. And that was 50 years ago, before you even thought there was a conspiracy, right?

W. Are you familiar with William Colby's Church Committee testimony, and Carl Bernstein's famous Rolling Stone article about CIA Operation Mockingbird?

 Dude, I was there way back then either listening to Colby live or in a news wrap up that night. W. and I did read Bernstien's RS article and I do know how Colby died..

W. Are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

Now relax and listen. No offense.You're obsession with "operation mockingbird" is so out of date, all that remains of it is a dog whistle for Maga!

Do you honestly think the CIA has ever had 1000th the ability to influence large numbers of the public as currently Elon Musk and Mark  Zuckerberg has?

Well think about it.

****

W. while orchestrating smear campaigns against the honest investigators, attorneys, and film makers who have exposed their fraudulence-- e.g., Jim Garrison, Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, James DiEugenio, et.al.

I don't think it's my place to argue "honesty". But all these "conspiracy superheroes" are just people W. They make mistakes. I disagree a little to a lot with  them and in some areas I think some have exercised really bad judgment, which doesn't negate their accomplishments..

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

ignores the fact that there was-- and still is-- an organized, heavily-funded psy op to promote Allen Dulles's "Lone Nut" WCR narrative about the conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy.

W. that's total garbage BS! Whose funding this? You have no idea whose funding anything!

If you're going back to government  suppression of the JFK files. The government can do that very cheaply.

But when you use the phrase "heavily funded", you seem to be implying private interests and if so, who are they?

Let's dissolve your myths. Please answer

1)W. Do you actually believe that people in the present government 60 years later know who killed JFK?

2)Whose threatened? Do you honestly think the World superpower is going to dismantle their Intelligence?

3)What is the worst that could happen? Since nobody in the present government was there on the 60's. Why would there be anything other than probably very innocent bureaucrats being fired and a rearrangement of the lounge chair seats?

In regard to what Pat's saying. There's a territorial issue going on about Litwin, who at least from what I've seen has been sort of silently trolling around here for years. And now he's actually engaging.

Unfortunately there's sort of an extensive  JFKA conspiracy buffet of stories, witnesses ,conspiracy superheroes, and super authors and I've seen a lack of critical thinking here, so that it's easier to just order the whole menu and stubbornly defend it,  rather than repudiating any of it, or it's sources, and it's left us with a lot of dogma.  I think there are a number of relatively new people here who are open to the truth wherever it leads. 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

If I can get a second, Karl could join the rare company of such EF MAGA Golden Toilet Award luminaries as Robert Wheeler and Mathew Koch!

What W.?!!  I'd be careful of who you might be stepping on toes here about Wheeler! Thank God, we're off the grid here in "Political discussions!"

Jim Di:  Sydney  Powell is a good lawyer! The fact that no one knows who she is, tells you how bad the MSM is! And Mr. Wheeler should post the pdf of her latest filing!

Oh yes! MSM bad, says Jim! It sure took them a long time to recognize the greatness of Sydney Powell! Or did it?!! heh!

Mr. Wheeler?*  I've never seen Di Eugenio call anyone here Mr.! Probably also a good idea to lay off Jim Di fave,  Sydney Powell who plead guilty and culpabie in the theft and dissemination of voting-machine software and election data ,in the case over efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s 2020 loss in Georgia! And I'd be careful about saying anything bad about Jonathan Turley as well!

heh heh

******

8 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, the border czar, is ambitious to become the hurricane czar too, applying her philosophy to do... nothing." 

Karl demanding immediate U.S. Government action!

Are you out of your mind? To clue ya. The Democrats are always the party of giving aid in natural disasters,  but the Republican Governors and Congressman refuse it unless it's to their home state, Karl! No one could have done worse than W. in Hurricane Katrina! Look up,  "You're doing a heckuva job,  Brownie."

*****

But seriously It's terrible what's happened to Asheville. It's one of my favorite towns in the region. Being the only city over 2000 in elevation east of the Rockies. I thought it might be the best climate to escape the humidity of those Eastern summers!

But we know in a few years we're probably going to average multiple hurricanes of this magnitude every season. Why wouldn't we?

* Just to remind and clarify. 4 years ago, during the 2020 election. Wheeler was given a deadline by James Gordon to retract a post saying that Joe Biden and his family were pedophiles. At the deadline Wheeler hunkered down on his allegation and has never been back since, though judging by the level of his other sources,  I bet he still monitors this forum everyday.

Fran Leibowitz? Karl, So you even know who she is? She's a writer, not a politician.And she says they "shouldn't have the right to call themselves the Supreme Court." Wow! So that sounds like she's crying for a revolution to you Karl? I'd say you're too impressionable and spend too much spare time on twitter. Here, she has  the right of free speech. Nobody takes it so seriously. But if we had the President and both houses, I'd either pack it or impose term limits. It's absurd! 

Congrats Karl! Karl's ebullient because his anti immigration "freedom party" won the election in Austria. Now they have to form a coalition.

Jerkoff Duke on twitter: This is what our President posts just 2 hours ago. Nothing about the suffering and needs of the people of Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc from Hurricane Helene. Billions to Ukraine while the citizens of Maui still wait for help and now add this. NO to 4 more years of this!

Believe me Karl, they will all get more aid than Austria's budget, probably for the rest of this decade!  And I regret to inform Duke on twitter who wrote this,  they would get considerably less under Trump. And unfortunately the climate problems are going to increase and any hope of curtailing that would vanish under Trump, as he doesn't see it as a problem.

Stephen Miller MD. PHd - Kamala's Harris border policy -Cost: 182 Billion!,

Based on what? It sounds like Chris Martenson all over again. Did you end up  buying  into his gold/crypto scheme Karl?

-That's funny! It looks like Kamala's groovin' to the border being crashed by a bunch of lilly white Austrian men! Their faces even glow in the dark! I'm completely opposed!I

But I'll make an exception for you Karl, because you're a very cool conspiracy person. I know your country's problems with Asians and Muslims have probably gone to the breaking point, if you say so!  So if you want to take your try at sneaking over our Southern border, be my guest, but be sure to bring plenty of sun screen!

heh heh

On 9/20/2024 at 1:06 AM, Karl Kinaski said:

 

Good reenactment of Routh's actions (starts around 1 minute into the video). Routh was hanging around his sniper's nest for 12 hours -- undetected. I had to grin when Watters mentioned Routh's 'sick smirk' ... where have I heard that expression before? Right: Lone Nutters loved attributing it to Oswald. 

 

Yes, as Karl can attest, Jessie Watters is the new heat throb of Vienna! And in a short couple of years has completely supplanted Tucker Carlson and even regional hero Sebastian Gorka*, a feat a few years ago, no one thought imaginable!

And to name other regional luminaries, of course there's the  queen bee of Karl's region, Melania, who to Austrian  men  represents that the American Dream is indeed still alive and to the Austrian women  there is joy about Melania's new very lucrative nuptial agreement with Donald, in the old tradition of Zsa Zsa, Eva and Ivana!    (Below)

Karl:Biden-Harris inflation has made fast food and beef unaffordable: "Americans may ultimately have to readjust to a pre-McDonald’s reality: beef as an expensive delicacy to be enjoyed from time to time."

beef as an expensive delicacy to be enjoyed from time to time."

Ho yes, that would serve those American pigs right!  Well, I'm not holding my breathe on that one!

Besides, it doesn't matter to me. I haven't had a hamburger in over 50 years! Karl can be smug about it, while enjoying his favorite,  wienerschnitzel (please no lemon!) goulash soup, and strudel!

*Along with the late Charles Krauthammer.

2 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

Karl, to be clear this is what you get when you use Trump as a source.  The phone call where Trump withholds military funding to Ukraine and ties it into investigation of his political rival Joe Biden's son Hunter occurs on July 25th, 2019. Of course Zelensky wanting aid from Trump and the U.S. downplayed  the incident to stay on the President Trump's good side. Just as you can see he's doing  in this meeting today, under the possibility that Trump could again become President.

But Zelensky's downplay meant nothing as many could see that was the expedient thing for Zelensky to do, and contrary to what Trump said, the impeachment hearings didn't collapse, but went forward a couple of months later. 

In December 2019, Trump was impeached only to be acquitted by the Senate in Jan. 2020 because they couldn't get the required 2/3rds of the vote.

2 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

I hope the killers will not succeed this time. It would be Dallas 1963  all over again and turning your great country upside town. 

No Karl, the prevailing mood now is that the American people know there will be a lot more assassination attempts  should Trump get in office and we're all getting tired of it. We're starting to reach the conclusion who really needs the bad Karma? And that it's a lot less drama all the way around if we let Trump see if  he can make it through the next 6 weeks, and go with Harris, and we might even get some sensible gun legislation  out of it.

You heard it here first.

7 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Guess it's over, isn't it?

Comrade Kamala sank her campaign. 

 

Karl:Guess it's over, isn't it?

Comrade Kamala sank her campaign. 

Are you sure about that Karl? Not this morning! Are you hoping Trump just got "mixed up?"

Jessie Watters:NEW @KamalaHarris interview just dropped: she rambled, never answered questions directly, said the American Dream is gone, and sank her campaign.

 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Newsom?  Don't blame me.  I voted for Matt Gonzalez.

On 9/24/2024 at 1:33 AM, Paul Rigby said:

 

I've waited a bit to see the case for conspiracy.  I've seen a number of your video clips now. It seems a lot of your newest material is going live now. So the news lag is starting to come to an end. We all know about Routh's  letter addressed "to the world" where he stated his intention and offered $150,000 to anyone who might in the future  make the same attempt successfully. We know about the routes to Mexico, the phony license plates etc.

Now they've eliminated a second gunman and the best hope for a conspiracy lies in Routh being financed by a third party,like this recent guy speculated the Iranians, probably because of his recruitment antics in Afghanistan. He continually quotes Fox bimbo Dan Bongino and continually asks how Routh could have known Trump was going to be golfing, but we now know that Routh had Trump's campaign itinerary and  it was a Sunday and he would be at Mar Lago. So is that really a stretch?

They asked how he was financed, a good question. But he recently sold his home in North Carolina and was staying at his ex wife's nice house in Oahu, who was previously a Victoria Secrets executive.

This is very similar to the Crooks AA.  In that at first when the investigation was in it's early phase. There were only  partial releases which cause the podcasters to in essence say "Who do the deep state think they're fooling! Obviously they've gotten away with this so long they are confident they can say anything and get away with it." There was continual conjecture about how the stories didn't add up! And as this guy says "there shouldn't be any unknowns in a free society!"

But if you didn't learn through the Crooks ordeal, you're not going to get  all the info investigated released all at once. 

I notice some of these guys are calling Trump "President Trump." But he's not President.

I may like Obama but I haven't referred to him as President Obama since he's left office.

And as far these the video pictures posted, one of Jessie Watters and of course the Trump assassination "Fight fight fight pose."  First as far as Watters, it might be helpful to know.

Do you know who Routh's last ideal Presidential ticket was? Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy. 2 Republicans!

Whose going to tell Jessie?!

Bravo!

Another Seymour Hersch hit piece from JIm, but now it includes Maureen Callahan and Megyn Kelly?  I was going to let this thread go.

So the presumption of this thread is this red herring pushed now for many years by JIm di that started out stating the MSM was out to get the Kennedy's. It's a total sham, Whatever the MSM is allegedly doing to besmirch the Kennedys , the Kennedy family was still the best brand in politics, and that's never changed.  IMO in reality, it only adds to a mystique.

But it completely ignores the elephant in the room, the one Kennedy that has done the most to poison the Kennedy name is Robert Kennedy's Jr.'s candidacy. Which was a joke from the beginning. But now he's turned against the family party affiliation. Most all of his family recognize  he has tarnished his family name and made it harder for their future generations.

None of his ardent supporters here are capable of acknowledging this. They can read this piece and not even consider that.

It's Jim who needs sainthood for JFK. Jim has spent hundreds of hours trying to check and recheck schedules to disprove JFK had any affair with Marilyn Monroe. I'm not sure, did I recall more recently he's backpedaled a little on that and has now conceded that JFK and MM might have been alone in a room together for 15 minutes?     heh heh     I thought I heard that. Maybe I'm wrong. He probably should have just let it go. People have whatever opinion they're going to have about JFK's alleged womanizing. Trying to rebrand JFK as some saint actually trivializes him and the time he lived through.

Jim Di: "Even though any intelligent, objective person could discern that Slatzer was a prevaricator, both Anthony Summers in the eighties and Donald Wolfe in the nineties profusely used him as a reference. To anyone who has read the many  exposes about Slatzer, this is both inexplicable and inexcusable!

In her book, Ask Not, Callahan does not use the Castro angle. But she does use the Monroe angle.  And she references Hersh, Summers and Wolfe.  She even sourced the late David Heymann. Which is actually kind of shocking.  Because Heymann has been exposed as a fraudster almost as many times as Slatzer has. Which, I guess, shows that Callahan is an equal opportunity employer in this regard."

This speaks to something else though. There are often 2 sets of authors on both sides of these issues, and if you're not going to thoroughly read both sides and just blindly accept one persons opinion of which author's are right. How accurate will that be ultimately? But of course that's what is done all the time. 

I look at the whole thing, I don't buy these worst scenarios where the Kennedy's are directly behind MM's death. But given JFK's background, his life and times, rich, charismatic, intelligent, good looking. Why in the world wouldn't he be a womanizer? At least he hasn't ever been accused of being a rapist.                                         As far as Bobby, that doesn't make  much sense to me.  Certainly not a womanizer.  But it's not critical to me. Who am I to say?

(below)

*****

Cliff might like this. As he spoke of now departed DA Terrence Hallinan who was a colorful ,controversial DA  for many  years in San Francisco, defending LSD Laboratories,  Church of Satan Anton Lavay, Patty Hearst briefly , Medical Marijuana etc.

Gavin Newsom's first wife Kimberly Guilfoyle,  is current cutting up sh-t  with Donald Trump Jr. as his fiance. They got married in 2001,  and Newsom ended up playing around on her and  the marriage ended in 2005. Newsom has since married and has I believe has 3 kids.

Kamala Harris was part of Halinan's DA team, when Guilfoyle wanted admission and according to Hallinan, Harris lobbied very strongly against admitting her to the team.  So there's always been a feud between the 2 that Harris is largely silent about but Guilfoyle has talked about on Fox News. But still there seems to be some restraint about it as it would open up the whole can of worms between Newsome to Guilfoyle and Guilfoyle to Harris.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/09/19/us/politics/00harris-guilfoyle1/00harris-guilfoyle1-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp

They already got their own body in Congress. Can't we have our election decided by who gets the most votes?

I agree W.  on all those counts. Though the Dems have moved closer to the Republicans on tariffs. But now Trump has shot to the moon on tariffs and the Dems are starting to draw the line. I think history will credit Trump in recognizing the Chinese economic threat, but Biden will be credited with more of a surgical strike that didn't hurt American workers as much,  and I think it's worked better than i could have predicted 8 years ago, but that might also be due to a demographic decline in China as well. I think the Chinese have learned that it's more important to have a working relationship with the U.S. than say, Russia.

As for "Big Oil", Unfortunately I think the Dems have also move toward the Repubs on energy policy. Now policy is leading toward more energy independence and less concern for climate change because its really been decided on high that our energy needs are going to get much greater with the advent of AI and Crypto.

But it's also important to note that you can't find a Democratic politician who has come out in favor of Citizen's United. It's a little schizoid  though in that the Dems didn't want codified into law what they are in effect already doing. So they're kind of saying to their base.  "Please stop us, before we take this to such an extreme, you'll never forgive us, and that will be destabilizing."

Bill,In the interview, I would interpret it as the Dems are trying to portray themselves as the "good cops" or the benign face of capitalism and the Republicans are the bad cops  who don't care but are just adamant capitalists

.But both omit the word "corporate" because that's where their money comes from and who they work for. My take