Kirk Gallaway

18 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

"Perfect?" If true, then *why* was Trump so strongly opposed by his own party? He's hardly their "darling" even now. Do professional politicians REALLY want billionaires to replace them in the WH? Trump put Ted Cruz out of a job. If Trump were impeached that would be a warning to anyone else, and they would still have a Republican president. They would play it as they heroically did what was best for the U$A and impeached their own man. They can say that the people elected him, and point to video clips stating that they never wanted him.

The only man to become POTUS without being elected as P or VP was Gerald Ford. The forced resignations of Nixon and Agnew hasn't done the Republicans any lasting harm.

Trump will go too far, because like the scorpion, that's who he is...

 

Tom, I don't know if you've been following all this thread. But if so, Keep in mind,  if the Republicans try to impeach Trump, you've got a revolution on your hands from Michael. No, Trump's not a politician like them, but that would only make it harder, not easier.  Besides during the Watergate hearings both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. As far as domestic legislation and the issues I've mentioned, they see their melding with Trump as an historic opportunity  unparalleled in our lifetime.

Do they like Trump? No, It's not the bedfellow they would have liked, but it's the only one they could have gotten.

You sound very confident he will destroy himself like a scorpion, OK I get it, but as I said earlier, in my mind we can't absolutely know for sure until he gets in office. But looking at his recent tweets, the POTUS feeling he has to respond to Meryl Streep's speech and now today completely reversing himself on his tweet a few days ago saying the Republicans should wait on going after Obamacare. -----I'll grant you, we still can't be 100% sure that he's not just a crazy person.

2 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

I don't know why you think that's what I meant; I said "The powers that be." I certainly didn't mean the CIA or "old generals." They are the ones that take the orders from the ultra-wealthy. They do NOT call the shots, and never have.

The MICC (meaning those who profit by war or the threat of it) needs a boogey-man to keep a military force almost greater than the rest of the world's forces combined. This includes the oil companies as well as the Fed, Wall St. etc.

As far as "The" cold war, we have the one against "communism" that started before WWII ended, and the one that was escalated by Reagan against the "Evil Empire." War hasn't gone out of style, and a cold war with Russian isn't a case of "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." Reagan effectively started a new cold war after Detente was murdered. You think it couldn't happen again???

Do the military contracters want 'peace' with Russia? Do the "bankers and financiers" not profit from cold war as well as business dealings with Russia? Can you have business and cold war simultaneously? Americans do not support another ME war, but another cold war with beloved Reagan's evil empire? People still believe life in the USA under Reagan was the best it has ever been. Why not do it again?

Does Congress want to lift the current sanctions against Putin, or increase them? If they want to escalate and drops wants to drop them altogether and embrace Putin then he's putting himself in an unsafe position. IF on the other hand, Congress wants to do what Trump wants to do about Russia, then there is a marriage there for Trump.

Tom I never said you depicted them as "old generals" and I think I agree with  almost everything you've said here. But applied to now, Trump wants to boost our defense spending, increase our nuclear capability, (however insane that is) and the defense  crazy Republicans control both houses and have Mc Cain and Graham calling the shots. Is this is like Republican hog heaven? How much better can it get? Ok, they might try to get even more appropriations for playing up the Russian fear. But it's already insane, the defense hawks have won the appropriations war..

50 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

McConnell opposes literally anything and everything that BO does, so I'm finding it hard to belief his threat to cry election tampering was enough to make BO "back down." Particularly, when he had the intelligence community backing him up. It's already been said that BO didn't do enough about Russian tampering, so as expected he was damned if he do, and damned if he don't. And he's a lame duck - what did he have to lose?

What was the reaction of the majority of Congress to BO's proposal of a united front?

I agree, what did he have to lose? Still he acknowledges keeping shut in his Russian Hack conference because he didn't want to be part of the "political scrum".It depends on how you look at Obama. I look at him as backing down a lot. Yes sometimes it is "damned if you do or don't" and sometimes a President just has to show courage and be damned. It wasn't the majority of Congress, but the leadership and selected members. This was the first article I read about it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/11/obama-and-congress-knew-about-russian-hacking-and-they-did-nothing.html

Tom,

  Obama apparently thought enough of this threat that he felt it necessary to assemble Intelligence, law enforcement and Congressional leaders in September to reveal the scope of the Russian hacking and propose a united front against it. Mitch Mac Connell said if Obama was to go public, he'd declare the White House was tampering with the election, so Obama backed down. Comey was present at the meeting. I guess Obama feels double crossed now as Comey had no such reservations about tampering with the election only one week before the election even though he knew of the Russian hacking. In my opinion, Obama should have gone public 2 months before the election but he didn't have the courage and backed down in his perennial non confrontational tone.

He said in his "Russian Hack" news conference he didn't go forward on his own because he thought it would just be part of the "political scrum". Obviously he didn't have much faith in the bully pulpit of his Presidency. He was so restrained, how serious is the average American supposed to be about it? Obama said he met with Putin in September and told him to stop it, but other members of the DNC said it didn't stop. If those later hacks are still from the Russians, than Obama was very ineffectual in dealing with the problem and could have cost his party an election.To use a 60's reference, given the buildup to the news conference, I would almost call it the "That Was The Leak That Was"conference. Adding insult to injury. The Republicans have said, hey if it was such a big deal and we had the goods on the Russians, why didn't Obama come out with it.? Though of course they would been screaming bloody murder if he did. The truth is, he did mention it, but it was only sort of a weak, ho hum in passing.

Now that it's all over, the traditional Republicans are back to their hard line, and they're considering sanction,s but the damage, however conclusive you might think that is, is done.

*************

Tom says,

If Trump does what the real powers want, they will allow him to indulge his greed. If Trump doesn't follow orders (he won't!) the Republican Congress will impeach him, and the party will install a Cheney-like VP to keep bible-thumper Pence on track.

That would be an interesting prospect if Trump was to step so out of line that he was impeached by his own party, but I don't think so. He has the perfect globalist, multi national corporate banner they love with just a few kinks in it. One kink is the globalist fear of a trade war with China. This was enough to cause International Markets to plummet 800 points on election night only to rebound in the morning when the positives were weighed against the negatives, and there became hope that Trump the campaigner's bark was probably worse than his bite.Then the markets rebounded  and there's been a Trump rally to near 20,000, fueled mostly by 30, 40 and 50 % increases in Bank and finance stocks, which had been low for many years under Obama's regulations put in after the Great recession, and oil and infrastructure. One other lesser kink: they know now they can live with Trump's high profile  tweets  which will have a token effect of saving after all the taxpayer payouts maybe 50,000 jobs? in his first term out of the 5 million manufacturing jobs that were lost in the recession. (Let the kid have his toy.)  Agreed Tom, the forgotten people who voted for Trump in the hope of a trickle down theory, which is really what is, lowering tax rates for the super wealthy, de-regulating Wall Street and the big  banks, gutting  Environmental regulations will "find out they've been had." After all, it has been done before. But this is  music to the "Deep State".

Tom, I'll submit to you, The "Deep State' isn't a bunch of old generals and spies who long for the days of the Cold War and would like to resurrect the Russians as their whipping boy.They're not letting Trump "indulge in his greed". They're jumping on the gray train! These aren't some dark,twisted old  guys who do nothing but plot war. But they will finance and profit from war. These are bankers and financiers. They're into everything!

Trump  only finds the Russians endearing for meddling  in our elections to promote his election. There will be a lot of heightened rhetoric and maybe sanctions against the Russians for meddling, and in mind, possibly throwing the election. But all the while, at first  almost invisibly ,Trump will have no problem brokering deals with Putin that open Russia to American corporations. Because of this, Can I say for sure that there will be no attempt on Trump's life? This is America, anybody can get the means to blow anybody away. But  there will be no attempt by the "Deep State" on his life. Why?, because opening Russia is a great economic opportunity for them. They don't just make money through selling arms and weapons systems! Whatever sense of indignation some of them may temporarily feel as Americans, can be rationalized away. They're multi national in scope, they'll leave the outrage to saps like us. Peace will reign again, and those who were worried at the prospect of reopening the Cold War will be appeased. 

The National Security State and the MIC will be further thrilled as Trump boosts Defense spending and  our nuclear capacity.This was not due to some insidious plot they instigated but directly the result  of a electing a President who is pro defense. Is Trump boosting our nuclear  capacity really going to make us any safer? Is there really that big a nuclear threat in the world with MAD?  It's a good bet Trump wants to align  with Putin against his perceived threat of China.

I hear you about your fears about the National Security State. I can tell you the threat has been downgraded because it was pretty touch and go for a  few years when I was young.

As far as "the MIC based economy". Of course you know Trump is planning a big step up in military spending and boosting our nuclear arms capability so they're already pretty much getting their way.. Of all Trump's plans, that is probably one of the biggest slam dunks, because the Republicans control both houses and there is a considerable number of right wingers now in Congress who think that  almost the only legitimate role of government is defending the Nation State.

Hi Michael, Well I guess we can't know for sure about anything until he gets into office.I think the question is how sinister are our present day intelligence agencies? We know they have no qualms about spying on us, if they feel like it. But they have a much greater capacity to spy on us than they ever did in the 60's. Do you believe they have the conclusive info about the Russians they say they have? If not, what do you think their goals are?

Yeah Jim, I'm sorry your Julian Assange write in campaign for 2016 Time's Man of the Year didn't work out. i can't imagine why. I agree, it must be rigged!

Your article is old  Doug..There is no discrepancy. Roughly the same amount of people voted for the 2 major party candidates in 2008 as 2016.Roughly 130 million people in 2008. 129 million in 2016. But then you're forgetting to add 7 million more for the 2 alternative parties and the Utah  guy..

Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.

Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote. (That’s a difference of 2.86 million votes, not 212,000 votes.)

The remaining 5.7% of the vote went to other candidates, like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin, and, I don’t know, write-ins for flesh-eating bacteria.

http://fusion.net/story/377098/final-popular-vote-count/

Yeah, he thought blackmailing politicians and illegal surveillance was pretty heady stuff. Now they're throwing elections.

Dave,You know I love your collection! I particularly like these phone calls. I think you should get more of those. As to be expected the audio is pretty scratchy at times.I had forgotten you were the source of the March and May phone between JFK and RFK where JFK refers to his CIA appointee John Mc Cone as behaving like a "horses ass" and how he's using his public statements to embarrass the administration.

There are a number of good LBJ conversations, particularly with RFK, such as the the classic one where RFK mentions to LBJ that he suspects that Hoover is spreading rumors to LBJ that RFK wants to overthrow the government at 1:32. I know this was the low hanging fruit at one point. and it's hard to find gems.

You're a great fan of old MSM, I was watching it there right along side you.. At this point, I'd suggest exploring more the interpersonal interaction  in the communications between any of the 60's political, governmental icons. I think that can generate a lot of interest.. Anyway, congratulations on consolidating your work!

Yow! Let me count the ways! Could this be the most stolen election of all time? The FBI had the Weiner laptop on Oct.3rd! But you're lead to believe they couldn't find one Clinton e mail and bring it to the attention of Comey for over 3 weeks! So the 8 days they took to inspect it could have been completed by mid October! All the while you remember we were told on Oct 28th that they couldn't possibly review all the e-mails by the time of the elections! And Weiner's wife still doesn't know how the Clinton e-mails got on her husbands laptop! and the Guliani connection again!

On 12/13/2016 at 11:51 AM, Ron Ecker said:

Maybe Trump will try to do what JFK allegedly wanted to do. Abolish the CIA. Even JFK never publicly called a CIA report "ridiculous." (Did he?)

 

 

That would be something, Ron. But I wouldn't hold my breathe on that. All his appointments are either Generals or Business leaders. Trump poses no threat to the Multi national elites. On the contrary they'd like him. He's the most pro business President we might ever have. The only wild card could be his conduct of foreign policy.

Glenn,  It sounds like you lost focus on Sandy's issue of campaign rhetoric and now you're trying to make this about Hilary's lies or alleged improprieties. But we've already had this debate in great detail a while back. I contributed what I could. I'm not sure where you were but I personally see no reason to re- litigate it.

On 12/10/2016 at 3:31 PM, Glenn Nall said:

ok, so here's my question; perhaps an attorney might see the logic here - Hillary supporters will not:

So I rob a convenience store. Which is against the law.

I'm not caught, and i get away with 17 cases of Miller Light, a carton of Newports and $49.26 - my priorities being what they are as an armed robber of convenience stores.

I tell my best friend about it.

He snitches.

I'm busted. With a case and a half of Miller Lite as the only evidence. My priorities being what they are...

Is it the snitch's fault that I'm busted?

??? No, It's your fault and probably would say something about your character that you couldn't even trust your best friend.

So Hillary willfully told who? who told everyone else, but it's not his fault? 

Glenn, it probably took Sandy all of 10 minutes to come up with his list of appalling campaign rhetoric by Trump. (Which honestly Glenn, having followed the election process most all of my life was by far the most appalling,not to mention the bullxxxxted  campaign I can ever remember.)
And you've made the case that Hillary's rhetoric was as bad and now it's taken you 3 weeks and you still haven't come up with anything! My guess is your best point will be the "deplorables" comment and you're not going to stack up in quality or quantity to Sandy's list.

I assumed that was through Nixon.Nixon at one point was plotting to poison Anderson.

Anderson publicly said later that the Kennedy assassination was carried out by the Mafia.Or so he said.

Yeah I saw Joannides wasn't listed.

Tom , who knows? Trump certainly has a conspiracy theorist contingency and has opened the door a bit with his Rafael Cruz allegations. He does express non mainstream views and would like to embarrass the MSM. There are people are expecting Trump to be an advocate of open and honest government. We'll see.

Larry, Thanks for the detailed response and the time you've taken.

Please tell me if I'm wrong. So the present status is that they have met the requirements and are currently counting votes in Wisconsin, but there's no estimate how long that will take? And they are counting in Pennsylvania, but with the legal hurdles and increased cost burdens, it would seem that there is little hope of coming in with an action that would effect the vote by the electors? (which I figure to be on Dec. 19th.)

On 11/24/2016 at 9:29 AM, Vince Palamara said:

Sean Stone, son of Oliver Stone, was brilliant. Roger Stone gave a pro-Trump, anti-Hillary speech with 25 percent LBJ-did-it theory mixed in.

I checked it out. That's true 75% of Stones presentation was a Pro Trump,anti Hillary speech. Which come to think of it makes sense, since the sum total of research contribution he's made to the Kennedy assassination could be put on a post card.

And that's only if you believe his story that he was the only person in history Nixon singled out to reveal his belief that LBJ did it and he didn't think it noteworthy to tell anyone else for half his life before he revealed it.

About the only resistance he encountered was in the Q&A , after making reference to LBJ's shameless womanizing, someone asked  if in all the time he spent with Trump did he find Trump had much in common with LBJ. In which Stone brilliantly sidesteps denying seeing any of that side of Trump but then viciously comparing LBJ (who of course murdered JFK) and Hillary. I guess Roger saw that article on line about Hillary going to Epstien's pedophile island with Bill to get herself laid.

In fairness, he did say Nixon "wasn't perfect" and Trump "isn't perfect" which made me think anything short of the bar of "perfect" is OK. Except maybe if it's Hillary or LBJ.

Then he cleverly ends revealing his soft, personal side, calling for prayer, for Trump.

Vince, did I notice in passing Stone referred to you as Vince Palmyrie?

Wow, Larry thanks for the update!

From a layman's view. I've never quite understand how this process works. Do they only respond to specific documents or groups of documents that are requested?

Obviously as they say, there are no smoking guns there.  I assume it was once very easy  to destroy documents that could be very damaging, but  it's almost impossible for obfuscating agencies to cross reference everything so we get these little grains of clues and are left to schlep out the rest? 

I had heard that. He was initially a lefty who was into a world government after WWll , he was under suspicion by Mc Carthy at one point. He met Dulles and Dulles gave him a job.

I've seen just the video sequence and a few interviews. I've read none of St. Johns writings. (by the way, WTF is with "Saint" anybody have any ideas?) It didn't seem to me in the interview that St. John was much of a Kennedy assassination buff. He suggested the Corsican mob, and his Father said it could have been.

JMO but I think this was a partial hangout designed to give St. John an income stream. Douglas may disagree, but I think EHH was covering for his boss and the agency, so he decided to blame LBJ as the mastermind(though he does only state that as his belief)knowing that  some in the conspiracy circles at that time were trying to mount a case against LBJ. The other accomplices he includes, Harvey, Phillips, Sturgis, Morales, were all  his associations and had been prime suspects so giving them away after their deaths was no problem.

That was the first time I had heard of Meyer as an accomplice who  was so overwhelmed with jealousy toward JFK for having an affair with his ex-wife. That was the plot's thin link to LBJ, so I find that a bit suspect.

I thought I had read that St. John now believes it was Dulles and the CIA, which means he suspects his Dad's story.

On 11/18/2016 at 3:20 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Yeah Glenn, I would probably like someone who was a little more in touch with the common man as the Democrats were from FDR to about Clinton. But on the other hand, whatever high profile tweets Trump can do to save some jobs. Without an overall policy change, those same forgotten people will still be forgotten in 4 years. Because you have to notice the Wall Street insiders Trump's putting into critical economic posts. And that says more than anything.

Oh, Glenn, I thought you were going to respond to Sandy's list of appalling, sexist, false accusations, scare mongering, denigration of sacrifices of war heroes like  John Mc Cain, and vets in general like yourself and just general lame ass comments Trump made throughout the campaign with your own list of Hillary's similar dirty campaign rhetoric, but we've yet to hear it yet. I assume your still researching?

Sandy said,

Some of the appalling things Trump said during his campaign.

 

• “If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
   
• [John McCain's]  not a war hero... He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured." 
   
• “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. ... They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.”
   
• "Look at [Carly Fiorinas] face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"
   
• "I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."
   
• "[Ford is] going to build a plant [in Mexico] and illegals are going drive those cars right over the border ... And they'll probably end up stealing the cars."
   
• "And, I would say the co-founder [of ISIS] would be crooked Hillary Clinton."
   
• Written statement from the Trump campaign: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

 

Not exactly presidential material.

 

de·test·a·ble

diˈtestəbəl/

adjective: detestable

1. deserving intense dislike.

    

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, Ron, you're right. Maris managed to swat only 14 four-ply wallops in his two years with St. Louis in 1967 and '68. But, amazingly, the Cardinals won the pennant in both of those seasons---even with Maris' meager power output. '68, of course, was the Year Of The Pitcher (mainly, Bob Gibson).

If you're interested, I've archived Maris' 61st circuit clout (and lots more stuff) at my Baseball webpage.

JFK Segue....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/JFK Interview On Opening Day Of The 1961 Baseball Season

Hey first off, the site looks great Jim! It's always been one of my favorite sites, but did need a facelift. Bravo to all!

Dave, Ron--I had a Maris card from Kansas City. Thought Barry Pepper was a good casting choice. Wasn't that crazy about the HBO special. I think of the Cardinals and the Cepeda for Sadecki trade and wince! I knew it was wrong at the time. We had Mays, Mac Covey, Cepeda, and Hart!

Check out all the Hall of Famers in the 67' All Star Game! 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ALS/ALS196707110.shtml