Kirk Gallaway

Ron says: The bigger picture was ignored or suppressed, paying off porn stars, screwing one while his wife's pregnant. Suppressed? So you're saying that story wasn't wasn't splattered everywhere in the MSM? Everybody knows the Stormy Daniel story Ron. She actually had a lawyer who was on every major network every day (where were you?, Do you own a TV ?) exploiting the story with such success , he actually was considering running for President as a Democrat in 2020 but just last week got indicted for trying to extort Nike. I find it ironic that somebody so completely out of touch with what was going on would be continually opining about, of all things, the MSM.

Ron, You seem to straining to find some solidarity with Jim. Jim has never expressed that he feels Trump is "guilty of real crimes which may be proven in the future" like you. Jim has never hinted he has any suspicion of Trump impropriety much less on these moral issues you've focused on,. the sanctity of marriage etc.. Only until this thread has Jim even admitted to disagreeing with Trump about his politics, though you would suspect he would. For years, he's been silent, though he's weighed in on about everything else.. Ron says: Jim's right again though. While there may be substantial crimes in the investigations of Russian collusion focusing exclusively on them is a distraction from equally important issues. I agree with you in that I've never focused exclusively on Russian collusion, though I tend to believe he is compromised. And of course, if he is, that's very serious. Honestly 2 years ago, I didn't expect they would find as much circumstantial evidence and past history of Trump with Russian ties as they in fact have. It was previously inconceivable to me that he could have been that careless to leave that many clues but in that time that I've witnessed Trump and the Trump Presidency, I now see him, and it makes perfect sense, as he is such a loose cannon.The compulsive lying, Circumstantially it also makes sense in that he's not the least curious and has no idea of his limitations so he's a sucker and gets played in the hands of more aware types. .When you say "equally important issues" I assume you are talking about Trump Obstruction or just his overall financial corruption or both? If so I agree with you, But once again, Jim believes in neither. So the only point you agree with him on, I also agree that " focusing exclusively Russian collusion is a distraction." ******************** Ron said: His demeaning "Locker room talk" about grabbing them by the pussy, while his wife was pregnant, was ignored. Ron, were off on planet "X' during the time of the campaign during the "Pussy Grabbing" incident? I wonder if Trump supporters here thought that this was ignored by the MSM at the time? Ron says: Hypocrisy in action. Ignored by the Main Stream media of course. Of course??? I would think you're about the only one here who would say he "Trump pussy grabbing comment" was ignored. by the MSM. And the hypocritical MSM did this.... because they wanted Trump to be President???, I've seen this before. You seem to be just reflexively going off on some tangent of paranoid fear about the MSM. I can't make sense of it. What are you really saying?

Yawn! ??? I conceded you were said "sassy" Jim, but I didn't say you had a "sense of humor." I know you like being the official but get that stick out of your butt! Ok, back to the Steele dossier and HRC inevitably. (yawn) Fusion GPS was contracted by the conservative political website the Washington Free Beacon to provide opposition research.on Trump. . Everyone knows the chain of possession Jim, even if you don't.. Jim says: But Schiff wanted to keep this whole thing alive politically So you're saying that Schiff could actually keep it alive or kill the whole thing on his own? That's crazy! There were media investigations into Trump on many levels. Some of it started from the day of his election, that had taken on a life of it's own despite later public efforts of the Republican backed Congress to suppress it.

Jim says: In the House, the gassy Schiff is still not ready to lay off. Even when they are nailing him with his past pronouncements. Yes Jim, I think you've supplanted Sean Hannity as Trump's bedside confidant.You appear to really have incensed him with your comments! I l do love the phrase, "The gassy Schiff". To hear you tell it, Between your phrase, Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes, there's a lot of "gassiness' going on down there in Socal! Or maybe you all could be characterized as Phil Hartmann ( R.I.P.) would say, as "sassy". You're certainly "sassy" Jim, and Adam Schiff,? Man he's way "sassy"! And Devin Nunes???? (Prowling around the White House lawn),..... Ok maybe not so sassy. As Cliff noted at the time. You were quite eager to take a victory lap about this even before any comment from Barr. I get it, it is a secure feeling, being the official. Obviously enough circumstantial evidence here to put away a black man. (Maybe even Obama with a Republican Congress?) I call it the "single bullsh-t theory."

Ty, It doesn't sound like the concept of collective responsibility is necessarily one you subscribe to. But the entire problem of the suffering of misplaced people out of Syria and throughout the Middle East can be directly attributed To GWB's invasion of Iraq and his deposing of Saddam Hussein who was a Sunni minority leader who held control over a Shia majority. After Democratic elections, the Shia majority won and took retribution at the Sunnis forcing them to flee their homes and in part to form radical groups such as Isis. Right now other countries in the Middle East and throughout Europe have taken it upon themselves to relocate the refugees from this calamity, and yet our immigration policy takes little to no responsibility for taking care of the problem that we have, in fact created.

Whoa! Cliff. These are just the kind of questions Jim Di will run from like the plague. Just as any direct questions I ask, he'll inevitably evoke HC or Nixon. Just as "mum's the word" about the nature of the financial dealings throughout the world that can be verified from not only his family's statements but even more darkly from others he's associated with. Don't take the MSM away from Jim, who believes like Trump, they are the entire reason we are where we are. Where would Jim be without the wimpy victimization message he proselytizes to all his minions here that we have no free will in the face of the MSM omnipotence and are so all helpless to move the needle about the JFKA or anything else in the present. Bob says: Nobody that I'm aware of has ever said the Steele dossier was anything but an unverified draft political hit piece including Steele. I've never stated in any way whether Cohen was in Prague or not, which in my view doesn't make any difference and has no bearing on whether or not Trump was colluding or conspiring with Russians. Oh Bob,So nobody bought the Steele Dossier?!! It was only jammed down or throats by the MSM, so in choking desperation, our only mantra could be Impeach Trump! Impeach Trump! Don't don't take away the Steele dossier! What would be left of our trio's buzzword's peetape!, Prague!. It's that same sort of wimpy susceptibility, that will cause someone to see a tabloid story about the Kennedys at a grocery checkout and cry foul at the ungodly smearing of the Kennedy family from the Mainstream Media! Bob says; Oh Trump's after health care because his only concern of course is that Obama's signature accomplishment be dashed on the rocks. Ol Trumpster doesn't exactly care too much for the black man gettin all uppity and making jokes of him. If anyone think Trump's actions reflect a policy disagreement they're sorely mistaken "Who knew health care was complicated etc...". And apparently Trump now emboldened by what he has misread as "total exoneration" is going to go back after the ACA. Talk about a fool who could snatch defeat from the jaws of the hope of a victory!

Wow, I never saw this. So Ollie now thinks it's the Secret Service and not rogue CIA?

Paul said: I might be mistaken about this Kirk, but the corruption, and the damage, is so completely obvious that maybe Jim didn’t think it necessary.  I don't make assumptions Paul, but I do listen to what people say. This is his first real criticism of Trump, but it's totally about policy. Jim has mentioned nothing about your charge of corruption, nor as he ever mentioned one indictable thing about Trump in 2 years. and hasn't today. I personally think in the scope of corruption, Trump makes Nixon look like a boy scout. But that's my opinion. But Ok, it's a new day. We'll even leave Putin and the election tampering issue aside.------ Jim do you think Trump is compromised by Russian Oligarchs?

Exactly Paul, but read what Jim has written. Jim has never acknowledged that corruption and still doesn't. It wasn't until last night that Jim could even criticize Trump's policies. Jim finally says last night.: 1.) It diverted from the really bad things that Trump has done in places like Venezuela, and his love affair with Likud, and 2.) His disastrous tax plan which was always a way to benefit the upper classes and later steal from the middle class through Social Security and Medicare cuts. Whoa, so after 2 years Jim's finally mustered up the courage to actually criticize the damage of Trump's policies, much less the corruption of the Trump Presidency? When for the last 2 years he's been the foremost apologist and even showing praise for Trump. Jim, you were given every opportunity .to reverse yourself and were dared to utter a word against Trump about 6 weeks ago Jim, do you remember?. Kirk Said Jim, So now you're sensitive to the little guy? For 2 years never a word from you about the lies and corrosion of discourse, the bullying, the sexism, the divisive behavior, the fearmongering, the intimidation of people who can't defend themselves. Then on a macro scale, the economic suppression, the tax cuts for the wealthy. The total disregard for the environment at what some of us at least think is a critical time.  But you didn't take it. None of these things even mattered to you only 6 weeks ago.Mum was the word. Blind to the corruption around you in your pursuit of just one overriding issue.Now Jim scrambles to cover his silence.

Good article Steve, Even in a time when I would say a rather powerful rogue deep state did exist, many times more powerful then what could exist today. There were arms of government that were doing good intelligence work. The CIA Factbook is an almanac of relevant information about the countries of the world that's been around since the 60's and is often a source for academic research papers, and is interesting for everyday people to read who take an interest in foreign countries. It's always interesting to notice how little nuanced and how monolith driven that those who are always projecting to this day this government deep state are. Why wouldn't this be an earnest report, are we to believe that this would just be a monolithic CIA issuing a report to fool itself? There were many people who were wondering about the efficacy about world interventionist policies back in the 40's and 50's, and JFK wasn't the first. Steve says: U.S. dominance in the world in the 1950's was not the same as the U.S. position in the world in the 1970's. The authors of this paper felt the same way. Agreed. They realized the U.S couldn't hold on to the economic dominance and perfect world image after WWll. Their task after the war was to hold on to as much of their economically superior position, controlling a quarter of the world's resources and give as little back as they could. They keep track in tangibles, such as Coca Cola sales in the socialistic countries and supplying consumer staples to an expanding world middle class, and heavy machinery to developing nations. If you subscribe that all 3 of the murders of the 60's were done by conspiracies, even if not the same conspiracy, They undoubtedly changed the course of history. It would have been fascinating to see what would have happened had they all lived. I love prognostication. I'll just throw some ideas about what might have happened, for whatever they're worth. Since the voting public has great amnesia and in ordinary times, basically there are 2 issues that determine whether world leaders remain in office, and they are Peace and Prosperity. I think World Peace would have been served had they all lived. The credit for JFK ending the Cold War would have been relatively short lived, as all things were at that time. But I don't see any way JFK or King would have avoided the race riots of the 60's, and there still would have been a rebellious youth movement. . I don't think if RFK was elected President for 8 years,( Which I think would have happened.) he could have stopped the economic malaise of the 70's. So at the end of his 2 terms.There would be a lot of people in the beltway who would have had it with this liberalization, the taxation and the withering economy as well as those who just idea ideologically disagree with the Kennedy's, and the pendulum would have turned. It would still be tumultuous, but i think history would be kind to the Kennedy Brothers. Somebody here was mentioning Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey was a casualty of the Anti War movement and their disillusionment with RFK's death. If Humphrey was elected, we would have had National Health Care for many years by now. That was truly his baby. Instead we're facing a situation where that issue could cause such a divide it could break us.

I think Beto has excellent political instincts, I think with a little public speaking coaching, he can get rid of that flailing.(Though it does make me want to extend my hand to him.) I think he handled that Colin Kaepernick question as well as any politician could.. My problem with Beto is that he's a moderate over there with Joe Biden. While I do think this beltway acclaimed Biden/Beto is a sure moderate winner. I've become acclimated to extreme abnormalcy and don't want to go back to normalcy at any cost. I want the Democrats to seize the pendulum, and actually become policy oriented. Beto comes off good in social issues, let's see it extend to policy and hope he branches out a bit. . As for Old Joe, I think I've got the direction he's planning to take. He's going to be the septuagenarian who actually acts his age in distinction to Trump. I'm not young, but his soft spoken fatherly earnestness will even put me to sleep.

Joseph, I agree with your sentiment here. Isn't the human evolving story of JFK and the Kennedy family even more rich and interesting? We don't need a sanitized version and feel we have to continually run to the defense of the Kennedy's, or insist that he instinctively had the right judgment at every turn. And we don't need to overly glamorize it, or adapt it to anyone else's creepy fanboy image.

Bob, Thank You, Those are some great pictures, some great faces. Though perhaps in my ignorance, it does raise a few questions. Being American I first assumed all those sacks were untended trash bags. Then I see them used as a barricade for that tent. Those shields the police use are also unusual, they look like covers to industrial heaters. Am I to assume this is before Yanukovich fled the scene?

Doug, I think we both know this guy doesn't have a high win rate. But he does put forth some interesting theories. This one does make sense. As for the Democrats, I think the tides work in favor of just continuing to apply pressure, but then, I think this was Pelosi's employing a little reverse psychology. 0.- 56 seconds. https://youtu.be/j-QYYE7VrXg

Well Bob,with that U.N.report and your own words, I'll say that's certainly the most nuanced contribution to this discussion yet.. Jim says: Did you see Ukraine on Fire? !!! Jim, did you see "North to Alaska!" You have to!, It will change your world!

That 3 way discussion is a good article , Jeff. I've always liked Cohen. Is their (Cohen , Sheer, Van Huevel) lack of influence because they're not spouting the official war state party line that the powers that be want to propagate through the MSM? To a degree, yes. I use to think Van Heuvel was my only real spokesman on the MSM Sunday morning talk shows. Ultimately she comes off as stiff and sort of what the general public hates about NPR. (though I think she did make the single most cogent comment in this 3 way.) Cohen in his MSM appearances comes off as reasonable, mild mannered and professorial. Good for us advocates of World Peace. But his presence is kind of forgettable, and somewhat boring. Hey I didn't make the rules! There's certainly been a scarcity of any dynamic presence to show the historic folly, the plundering of our resources, death, casualties of all combatants or whoever in the way, and the displacement of the U.S. foreign policy. Granted they're not Hillary alarmists about Defense but put Trump and HC in about the same category, (though I don't really think she'd be asking for 3/4 of a trillion dollars for Defense right now.) But these guys seem like old liberals who are way out of touch and are really just as stuck in the old Cold War paradigm with Russia as the Neocons they're deriding. They're seeing the neocons as lighting a fire among the American masses to go to war with Russia is so 60 ish. The truth is getting some revenge on Russia and Putin is way down the list of American people's concerns, they are much more concerned with domestic policies, their health care and in the case of the Democrats, increasingly climate change, and income inequality. They talk about as much about Putin as the MSM does. And being intellectuals, they're usually protected somewhat from want, and it's reflected in their conversations and their almost non existent consideration of economic realities. The American policy toward Russia up to this, has been more one of indifference. And truly knowing America's priorities, why would it be otherwise? They are the single biggest underachieving country in the world with an economy not even as big as the touted Mediteranean basket case of the EU, Italy, (that's right I said Italy!) Russia is a fossil fuel based economy which if you believe in climate change is in itself a futuristic retrograde position. They get a lot of their food through the Netherlands, who aren't a hundredth of their size. They are an economic basket case with a still present kleptocracy to match, and an earnest populace with historically such modest expectations. The obsession Scheer , Van Heuvel and Cohen have with Russia is so completely in the past, just as it is with a number of posters on this forum. In this discussion, they mentioned Russia Putin probably 50 times and they mentioned China in one paragraph? I understand Cohen's gotta sell books, and does believe there's a danger, and that is his area of expertise. But try going to Shanghai and seeing the true 21st century country and infrastructure they've built for themselves, (they just completed a 50 mile bridge that saves 3 hours of driving time) and then compare it to the 1930's American dilapidated Russian infrastructure when you get out of any major city. China by some economic accounting systems has had a bigger economy than ours, and unless something unexpected happens is due to irrevocably pass us in this next decade. It's completely the opposite with Russia, with whom the U.S. could have a big trade surplus, but they choose to impose sanctions. However sad some of you may think that is. It does give pause to reflect on where the true power is in the world, and where the priorities lie. It's the one callously proclaimed sh-thole country that Trump has actually visited, for the same reasons as always, to make or pay down money. And that is the tragedy.

Good find, Dave! , As far as Specter's almost disaffected owning of the WC findings SBT, etc. that's the way he's always played it. It's the meeting with the Paines, (you would assume they lived in the same house, and they were reunited for a time? Or maybe one was visiting?) That throughout the trip, they were under surveillance , the incident with the man at Dealey Plaza and the Paines were tipped off and Michael was subtly threatening? Then stopped by the police on the way home. Whew! So the Paines are having occasional interviews with another JFK Assassination official story critic. But she's no threat until she brings over Salandria without telling the Paines, but they've already found out he was coming. My thoughts:, The conclusion Salandria is putting forth is the one I've always considered. That they, in their " no need to know basis" found themselves in the middle of a situation way beyond them, and seemingly beyond their previous affiliations. If as Salandria implies the reason for their compromise is Paine's father's Trotskyite background in order to get a work clearance, it sounds very thin. It seems to me,, there would have to be many other reasons. Otherwise, It just seems like a very dangerous, precarious plan that involves too close an exposure for Dulles. How can Ruth and Michael ever be vetted enough to be assured that when being placed in such a precarious position that they could be expected to stand up to such an enormous pressure as a Presidential Assassination? Nobody can say this fits together like a glove. He praises Talbot for his exposure of Dulles but Talbot doesn't see the Paines as complicit as Salandria does, but Salandria exhorts them, (now too late for at least one of them), to finally come clean.

It's not a deep state narrative foisted on the public and succeeding generations that they were so successful in infiltrating the anti war movement with psychedelic drugs, that they destroyed it. They left that to their opponents, and because the narrative has been taken so far away from the what I would more broadly call "the resistance", it plays very well into this pathology of victimization that I see so prevalent and is in some cases promulgated by certain prolific posters on this forum. . Could the Vietnam War have gone on longer than Afghanistan except with a waste treatment plant of blood? The answer is yes! And there's no narrative as to why that didn't happen other than the resistance to the war itself in everyday life. There's the outward resistance in terms of demonstrations and protests and then there's the everyday division among people and within families such as my own and the families of all my friends around me. Now Cliff mentions Leary with Congress, the Ken Kesey story. I didn't get that far. I've only touched upon one or two of these anecdotal stories that I heard from Potash in this interview that I thought were BS, but it doesn't seem further reading is worthwhile for me to pursue. The 60's are very complicated. The reactions to drugs are as varied as people themselves, but there was a lot more fomenting than just drugs and the drug culture. I'm sure there are a number of truths in these books, But now, many decades later, whatever present day deep state you think there is, they must be very encouraged that they didn't have to raise a glove and their lightning-out-of-a-bottle bungle morphed into another tale of deep state victimization. Game- Set -Match!. Hey that's market forces, for ya'!

Rob said: everyone is different and different psychological makeups react differently. Agreed; Some of it's your age, and your time of inception, and where you were. Actually in shear numbers the protests peaked out after 1968. Though that's always depicted as a seminal year. because of the riots. Paul, Sounds like you were in close proximity to Timothy Leary. Than what did stop the war? I don't think that was top down decision at all. No one could get elected being a hawk on the Viet Nam war after 1969. I think the chief reason the war ended was not because parents were losing their children, because I think just as in WW1 and WW2, we had really established a long generational history of losing children, and that could have easily continued. It was the fact the parents could now longer stand to both lose their children but now suffer the alienation of their children and the dividing of the nation. They were also getting messages through the media that the war was futile.

Rob,That's very interesting that you interviewed Hoffman, and that he lived to be 102! Wow! I never read Acid Dreams. I'm coming into this somewhat cold, but I'll give my observations about my experience at that time. I'm going to make some assumptions from what I've read about Potash. I concur that Timothy Leary was very irresponsible. And that's right, now I do remember Leary escaping from jail and staying in exile with Cleaver in Algeria. Potash quoted from a book that Brian Jones was murdered by Intelligence because he was just about to put together a super group with John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix, both he depicted as activists, but neither really were at that time. John Lennon didn't really take up activism until it had already peaked. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I personally don't believe it about Jone's death.. But as a story, anything pulling in rock icons sells. Not that I think Potash is dishonest, I just tend to be more skeptical. I don't where to start with Potash, or even if I should. From what I pick up from him in an interview with Sean Stone, if he was born closer to 1960 rather than I assume around 1980, he'd be a disciple for Ronald Reagan's war on drugs, but in 2018, with the irrefutable evidence of what disaster it was, he can't quite make up his mind about decriminalization..Certainly his story line that all these stars and activists had drugs foisted on them by CIA intelligence leaving them helpless to do anything other than their bidding may in some isolated circumstance have been be true, but generally is a crock. Drugs were already everywhere. Obviously we know the successful role of the CIA in smuggling cocaine and heroin, and their MK Ultra experiments with witting and unwitting subjects with LSD. Outside of the CIA, particularly with pot, natural psychedelics, and cocaine, there was a lot of trafficking by organized crime, as well as small time people who had access to planes or just smuggled drugs over international borders. As far as LSD, after it got out, and some thought it beneficial, they were making it locally. I know this clashes with the omnipotence of the CIA and government which would be so luring here. But I think most of the MK ultra drug experiments backfired, which was a conclusion they themselves came to believe. His chronology, is way off. Psychedelic drugs, widespread marijuana- hashish use predated the Viet Nam war protests. Once it leaked out of their experiments with LSD, and came out to the public at large, it didn't make people controllable, quite the opposite , it made people more free thinking and unruly. It was a total bungle. When you consider the sameness of the response to the JFKA, then only a few years later, it was viewed from young people as just another screw up by their war establishment parents, but there was no time to really reflect. That was a real revolution in thought, Good work CIA!. Potash premise: The CIA brought LSD into the anti war movement and stopped it cold. It's a total crock! The Anti Viet Nam movement was successful and brought the American war machine to it's knees. This is a fact that people born after the 60's never hear because we have to play politically correct with the silent majority at that time, or the families of soldiers who went to war there or gave their lives, and that benefits the actual people who created the war. Another successful but little recognized coverup by the Deep state? The anti war movement created the candidacy of Eugene Mc Carthy, RFK and eventually George Mc Govern in 1972. From around 1970 on it was understood that the War movement was eventually to be successful, but was going to be drawn out, with more lives lost, just to play out Nixon's story line of "Peace with Honor". This made many people angry, and many people dropped out, not because they were necessarily using psychedelics, the great majority weren't, but they had just become exhausted and dispirited that they couldn't have ended the war earlier. The psychedelic drug did not defang the anti war movement. The people who spearheaded the Anti war movement are not the psychedelic drug movement, yes there's overlap, a lot of people were taking psychedelic drugs at that time, but it wasn't an integral part of their lifestyle. Certainly there are anecdotal stories people can cherry pick to enforce their narratives. A footnote: I remember in the 70's when Cleaver was trying to make a comeback He even had his own clothing line. A pair of pants that had a special pocket extruding from the crotch area of the pants for the penis. True it was the afterthe 60's, but even then it was quite a stretch to think males were walking around all the time with erections. I found a link to it. Then later in the 70's, he came back to the states. I remember seeing a flyer once from him where he claimed he had become a born again Christian who saw the light one night in France, and he was speaking somewhere. He later became a Mormon and then a Republican. https://www.messynessychic.com/2013/08/01/the-1970s-political-activist-who-invented-penis-pants/

Jeff ,just to clue you what's going on, a strong majority of the American populace thinks their President is a crook. Among those most think he's probably the most corrupt President in the nation's history. I don't know how it will play out. I know you're a one topic guy, you want to convince people that Russia and Putin are innocent, still haggling about the Steele dossier of 2016. That's fine. There's a wealth of at least circumstantial evidence involving even the family that the most of the country can't ignore. Dumb masses that we are. . But even that doesn't matter anymore. You don't have enough of an assortment of fingers to plug every hole in this dyke. No offense but you're like a dog barking at the moon. Robert said: I was hoping AOC would challenge his assertion he was never in Prague even though the Steele Dossier said he was. Robert maybe you don't really know who AOC is, and she like many of the rest us, doesn't give a sh-t.

It didn't open for me. Paul, you think Leary was a CIA agent with the specific mission of getting youth to drop out of the Anti War movement? Or what was his purported purpose?

It's worse than that. Pedophile enabler Jordan first denied he had earlier heard of this doctor Straus's molesting of young boys, but when finally confronted that a third party said the this Doctors molestations had been discussed among faculty including Jordan on a regular basis. Jordan not too imaginatively took a page from his President and called it dismissively "locker room talk". Yeah, so this what counts for "locker room" talk in Jordan's world? He's even taken a page from Trump in his confidence at being able to get away with an infantile level of coverup. This guy was angling to be the Speaker of the House! https://youtu.be/DXbAv9F2JuM

I didn't even see your Qadaffi reply. So when somebody asks you a direct question, your first impulse to find links about Hillary Clinton?

You didn't answer an honest question. Maybe they'd suspect a wiring problem in the "information database?"