Kirk Gallaway

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.

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

Of course, this is very dangerous, and I don't meant make light of it but..... Did you know Trump tried to sue Bill Maher? And do you know what that was about?

IMO, Castro tried to go with us, and why wouldn't he? We were the premiere economic power in the world. He met directly through Nixon the Eisenhower, Dulles, multi national Industrial complex, who weren't going to give an inch on nationalization. IMO Castro probably knew complete nationalization wasn't really practical and wouldn't have nationalized near as much as he did, but ultimately he was left no choice. There's no doubt in my mind, if things had been handled more carefully, there would have been no defection to the Soviet bloc, no Cuban Missile crisis, no assassinated President. His actions after seizing control parallel many such revolutions of that time. He seized control decisively, brutally and repressively. Straight to the 3rd world Socialist model he forbid many Doctors, professionals and producers from leaving to countries where they could make a lot more money, and have a much higher standard of living, and thwarted incentive to the point that many of his reforms toward a Centralized economy never had a chance of working. That they continued these policies over the years except for very minor incremental market reform some attribute to Castro keeping the people down to ensure his complete control. Whatever the true intention, it didn't make a lot of sense. His best legacy was that he provided for all the best education and health care system in Latin America.Though I've never been to Cuba, I traveled extensively for months through Mexico and Central America in the 70's and 80's and with a few small exceptions there was extreme poverty, very little safety net, and great illiteracy. Go to Honduras, ( particularly with the scourge of drug gangs)then go to Cuba, you might prefer Cuba. Go to Costa Rica, maybe not. If you're a wealthy industrialist, and you go to Cuba, you'd have to be eying that cheap, dirt poor economy and educated work force like a hawk. Like Trump in 1998. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html

Well put Michael, I didn't think Glenn was going to get that "e" thing. I was thinking of offering clues such as "Endowed" as by our creator. That's self righteous hubris that's part of our makeup can be dangerous and has been used as a pretext (Germany in the 20th Century comes to mind) to take great license. And I agree, in our past has lead to the killing of a President and into Vietnam. As far as the Electoral College there were some more exceptional of us who thought that the less exceptional of us votes shouldn't count as much and that elections may need to be brokered.

While Conservatives would assail Mark Zuckerburg as being part of the "liberal media'. It's now evident that Facebook and other social media through their algorithms provided the infrastructure for these whacky Clinton conspiratorial allegations that fueled the Trump movement. They've now acknowledged some blame because of their inability to distinguish between truthful articles and completely fabricated ones.The sad truth is that on both sides people tend to read just the sources that lean in the directions of their bias. I think Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. I think the Clintons are liars (like most current day politicians)and very conflicted, (though I'm not sure how many other politicians are as conflicted). However, I'm not sure how much she's done that is illegal. But it should be illegal, and the fact politicians are allowed to do some overwhelming conflicts of interests that are actually legal really is our fault as citizens. I'm not very well versed on the subtleties of the law involving Hillary, but I think when Cliff sticks to just the case against Hillary, he does a pretty good case of defending her against illegal charges, that coupled with the factor that nobody(including up to now the FBI) has been able to make anything stick. Still I understand that there are probably a lot of people who don't subscribe to these incredibly villainous stories about the Clinton's that still don't trust her and would have a very hard time voting for her. I very much agree with Tom Neal who echoed what had been said thoughtfully earlier by Joe Bauer. The future of the Supreme Court is an issue Liberals, but I think a number of Conservatives here could agree upon. If you want openness in government, which is why you are here on this forum, and you want to take back your government from huge corporations and big money interests, you are much less safe with a more conservative Supreme Court. You have only to look at Citizens United. A person I thought was a very thoughtful conservative Ross Douthat , a strong Gun Rights advocate thought Citizens United was "right wing judicial overreach". If Trump nominates justices that further favors his wealthy class we'll be further disenfranchised. Then imagine if he tries to push back a women's right to choose by nominating a justice that would want to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, it doesn't seem likely, but it will divide the Nation inseparably. Unless you're the most virulent Hillary hater, and obviously there's a few of them, who can site sources over internet. But IMO, the future of Supreme court is reason enough.

Ok Glenn, You don't know nuthin' about taxes, but it did mean something to our exalted founding Father's and maybe you should know something more about who pays the bills. You've brought up a point I was going to bring up Pat. With this current electoral system, California is a donor state where both parties just go to get money on their way to Florida or Ohio. The blue states pay a higher percentage of the tax revenue supporting these basket case states which are overwhelmingly red states. Glenn, I think Georgia might be solvent but there are about 5 states immediately west of you that are just backwards and helped along by the federal government tax contributions of largely blue states. These are the facts and yet in the recipient states, you listen to the average guy talk about his distrust of the federal Government which is completely disingenuous. Also, it seems to me that CA's teats have fairly well dried up lately. Not sure anyone's sucking off of them, or even looking at them. Glenn, where have you been??. It's the 6th biggest economy in the world! That's including separate countries! I won't talk about the crazy evaluations in Silicon Valley because they're completely overblown. But do you realize the Central Valley in California is the most productive agricultural valley in the world? 9 of the 10 most agriculturally productive counties in the U.S. are in California. Not saying, we don't have massive problems with potential drought, which isn't just a problem for California but the entire country as such a high percentage of the nations fruits and vegetables come from California and there are a number of crops that are only grown in California and are exported throughout the world. And don't get me wrong. There are huge pension problems because for example we pay prison guards over twice what they pay in Texas. And it's very expensive to live here. But back to the electoral process, whatever the intention of our founding fathers, my vote isn't worth a sh-t except as a protest vote and I'm supposed to drive home from the polls be transfixed on Florida and what new way they'll come up with to mangle the democratic process. I stated very simply that the Fed Gov's job is not to help the less fortunate. But probably as a less fortunate state, you are being helped a little by the grace of others. In California, maybe we could use a few more Republicans and they might demand a rebate from you all.

Re: Tulsi Ron, Yes I've seen her, easy on my eyes,I had been facing the visceral prospects of 4 maybe even 8 years of HC which was, shall we say, not very appealing. First elected to office at 21.Iraq vet. Wow Resigned as vice chair to support Bernie, ostracized by DNC? what pigs! First woman rep. to endorse Bernie.Reprimanded by Clinton camp. Again what pigs! She knows what I like! Restoration of Glass Steagall, yeah. Environmentalist -check! Keep strong men in Middle East, OK, yeah what can we do? But against arm sale to Arabia . Good combo! Pretty damn good so far! Ron

You're right Paul, it can't be abstracted or diverted or bullsh-tted. It's gotta be about human needs on the most basic levels.

No Glenn, stick it to the people who are oppressing us. The wealthy, though not all the wealthy, the bigoted who would divide us. Get new blood in government. Don't have it so far reaching, but get it decisively and efficiently into what the public wants it to get into, and of course, open and accountable. A tall order, not easy, but doable. Ron, let me look more into Tulsi Gabbard.

Bernie deserves it, but he is going to be 79. Elizabeth Warren is good, but I think we got to strike out in a new direction.Gavin Newsome or Tom Steyer, it obviously can't be both. We need someone who will stick it to them. Gavin Newsome would be like the Knight in shining armor, but I fear would play it too much between the 40 yard lines. Steyer would stick it to them. We need a strong leader with conviction. And either could work. There's a stretch of time between then and now, and it could go wrong. But if things go right, But the public will want something new and fresh.

Thanks, Douglas That's a really good article. The typical Trump supporters in Middle America admire the "Super Wealthy" but hate professionals. In some cases they were brought with friends who were professionals and maybe didn't live as plentiful a life, but they were fine with it, because their needs were taken care of. Since the global recession, these same professionals have carried on with the same lifestyle, even a better lifestyle because of increased seniority, and many of these people have lost their jobs or found they could no longer make the living they had been accustom to with the lower wages that now exist. There were a couple of facts I might dispute. Silicon Valley is not at all in favor of Trump. The only real notable that is is Peter Thiel. The Trump appointments are very discouraging. The only meeting I have been at all encouraged by was Trump's meeting with Obama. He finally appeared humbled, and started to realize that this is for real and an enormous responsibility. In their meeting, Obama made no reference to the campaign and was earnestly trying to inform him for the good of the country and Trump at least looked like he realized that. He was to meet with Obama for a brief time and it lasted for an hour and half. And considering all the people who have met him since, I would have liked it if Obama had talked to him for 6 hours. Trump at least came out of it with a realization that he wants to keep certain provisions of the ACA. and that's the only thing he's really softened on, except that wall with Mexico can be a fence in certain parts. If his opposition can meet him with good intentions, I think that's the best way he can be approached. If you're an opposition leader with a solid constituency, It's a little like dealing with a child, you don't want to get on his bad side early because millions of people could be affected by his policies. It's almost like that spiteful little kid in an old episode of the Twilight Zone who found he had great psychic power to destroy his enemies, who was at the end, brought under control by a kind women psychologist who told him he had great powers that could be used for the benefit of everybody and shouldn't be used specifically against anybody. Another thing I don't agree with her about is that Trump is this ideologue that she seems to think he is. Remember he once came out for a single payer system. He's now in way over his head but I do think he really wants to be a popular President. I don't really think it's his intention to double cross and screw the people who gave him the election. But the people he's meeting with are definitely guiding him in that direction. His entire program to help them was just a jingoistic "We make terrible trade deals, I'm going to make great trade deals". When he finds that that would only marginally help at best. With all the deficit spending going on in his first term, ( The impartial CBO estimates 5 trillion in his first term) he's not going to be able to add any job training or retooling programs. These people are not going to want to reelect him.

All right, Glenn. I appreciate you admitted you're wrong. I see you work against Veteran homelessness. I appreciate that. Are you a veteran yourself? Then maybe you get turned off with non veterans talking about war when they have never had their character tested by experiencing a war firsthand. You have never experienced an election where the popular will is thwarted by the electoral college and you lost, so you've never had your character tested and that's why it's so easy for you to characterize their rage as "whining." Do you know we are the only country that uses an electoral college? We are also the only ones that use the phrase "the popular vote" In everywhere else it's just called "the vote" . And there are people from both parties who don't think the Constitution is so sacred that we can't admit that it might be wrong.

I think records do show that JVB did land the job at Coffee company at the same time as LHO. I don't know if they were ever introduced. Joe, I do think that interview with Mrs. Lewis, whatever her name is with JVB in the background are almost the most credible thing to her claims. I do agree she doesn't seem smart enough to be a good xxxx and couldn't seemingly restrain herself from her little axes to grind against Ron Lewis, which are neither here or there. But I think JVB is very cunning person who read all the literature up to that point about the Kennedy Assassination and used the fact that she worked with LHO and her previous connections to make a fantastic story, and all that information and allegation was already out there. That's she maneuvered herself into a central position in some circles in the assassination community is absolute coup, and a testament to her cunning. Thank God "60 minutes" thought better of going with her. That's really an interesting tidbit from Pamela that Haslam and Baker are from the same town. As I remember it wasn't Jack Ruby who told her to be a "vanilla girl" wasn't it David Ferry? This by itself doesn't mean much, but when I first saw her presentation on MWKK, she said quote. "Then Lee said to me, let me introduce you to my friend, Sparky Rubinstien" So now the pseudonym and then the proper name. I smelled a rat. Just too "inside" for me.

Thanks Sandy, Glenn, when you asked what I meant when I said that in the elections where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat. I said this, All our elections are decided by one man- one vote except the Presidential Election. In our lifetime there's only been 2 times when a candidate has gotten the most votes but lost in the Electoral College, and that's happened twice in the last 16years. (Gore vs. Bush) In the only 2 cases, they've gone to Republicans. What's the point in Cliff or any of us "complaining about it every election" when it's not an issue? What don't you understand about this? And then you use these refuted points as your talking points against Cliff twice. Are you really listening? And facts do matter, you're citing 1960 as an example is wrong! John Kennedy won by both the popular vote and the electoral college. Maybe you should admit you've been wrong.

Glenn, Since we can guess Cliff's a Democrat, and in our lifetime, they've never gone to the Democrats so that's never happened. All our elections are decided by one man- one vote except the Presidential Election. In our lifetime there's only been 2 times when a candidate has gotten the most votes but lost in the Electoral College, and that's happened twice in the last 16years. (Gore vs. Bush) In the only 2 cases, they've gone to Republicans. There are a lot of us on both sides that don't like the Electoral College. Donald Trump has said it's scam , but now that he's benefited from it, he's not complaining. And Georgian Newt Gingrich has said we should do away with it. What's the point in Cliff or any of us "complaining about it every election" when it's not an issue?

Glenn, Since we can guess Cliff's a Democrat, and in our lifetime, they've never gone to the Democrats so that's never happened. Cliff, I believe he said he'd always go by the popular vote. You might not believe him but I do because I feel the same way.(I'm registered independent) "what would be interesting to hear, from those who feel that the presidential election was a scam - or whatever they think -, is how the gubernatorial, congressional and senatorial majorities are ALL STILL Republican..." Not arguing whether it was "scam" Glenn. But as a Republican you're seeing that the Republicans win the right to control both houses through "one man, one vote" and win the right to control the Presidency through the Electoral College which was setup at the beginning to ensure that the minority not have to suffer from the will of the majority, as Roger De Laria pointed out. That's a noble goal, but it clearly doesn't apply here as both houses were already Republican and continue to be, but that ruling only serves to make the balanced completely for the Republicans. To me it's becoming sort of an entitlement. You and Cliff obviously love to argue. But what is easy to miss in Cliff's zeal are a some facts. I don't know about this election but in the previous election in 2014, did you know that in all the House and Senate Congressional elections,more people voted for Democrats, yet Republicans took the House and Senate? How could be this be? It's because the state legislatures, that are controlled more by Republicans reapportion the districts to benefit Republican candidates. You've probably seen some of these contorted Congressional maps, particularly living near a big city. The map in this case is rigged so Republicans win in districts where they have somewhat of an advantage and Democrats win in districts where they have a big advantage. So many more Republicans can win while the overall vote count was for the Democrats. The Democrats do this too, they just don't control as many state legislatures. One good thing I like that Trump says is the idea of term limits. We have that in California on a State level. I'm not sure how effective I think it is. But for California to do that on a national scale and have no other states do it would be stupid because because our representatives would never gain seniority on any of the big committee posts because they wouldn't be around long enough to gain seniority. Trumps term limits could be good, but I think a better idea might be to just plug some bi partisan info into a computer and let it make the districts at random. Now the public hates Congress but always votes for their Congressman so there's no change. But scrambling up the districts would shake things up a lot and force some of these politicians in their "sacred cow districts" to actually face each other, and bring new blood in the process. Congratulations, the ball is now completely in your court. I'm curious to see what these forgotten people in the rust belt feel after 4 years with Trump. Honestly, I don't think he'll do crap for them. But we'll see.

John, I'm not an economist but from what I gather Trump wants to increase both defense spending and proposes a one trillion dollar infrastructure bill over 10 years.. All the while, he wants to cut taxes on the wealthy and he says the middle class across the board. He wishfully hopes his capital friendly policies and huge deficits can unleash growth in the 5-6% range (Make America Great Again!) and hopes that the high tide lifts all boats, which is reminiscent of the trickle down theories of the Reagan era. His counterpart Paul Ryan is a deficit hawk who believes in preemptively "Cutting Social Security to save it." He is in sync with Trumps strong defense proposals. Whether political reality forces that back there is no doubt there will be a step up in defense spending. Ryan has largely opposed Obama's and the Democratic party's infrastructure proposals over the last 8 years. But it now appears that logjam is over. It might turn out to be a half trillion infrastructure bill and Wall Street is now licking their chops for increased stimulus. Trumps proposed appointments to critical cabinet posts indicate that those forgotten disenfranchised white voters have been snookered again. Trade wars could have disastrous effects but will modification of existing treaties really produce that many more jobs and wouldn't the market for those jobs be only among the workers who previously lost those jobs? Is the trade treaty issue really the issue at all, but just a convenient scapegoat, or is it really the displacement of jobs brought on by technology? In any rate, I don't see this populous wave receding and the peak election will be in 2020. Then the Republicans will have no excuse for their poor performance. The deficits will skyrocket but Trump has used debt skillfully throughout his business career, and could easily be the first to use the "D" word. A mitigating force toward negotiation might be that all the major world economies are taking on much higher rates of debt loads to GDP.

Oh Jim, thank you for sharing. (I assume you're trying to broaden your political base before Lancer's? heh heh) Oh I get it, you're trying to show how wrong the mainstream media was, as if you knew along what the results would be. And yet somehow it would be so important to you that Julian Aassange would be "Time's Man of the Year for 2016'". Hmmm, you think that's got legs, Jim? Maybe if you just keep dutifully adding Assange into your bullet points for the next 6 weeks. Who knows? We are the change that we can hope to make happen. Or something like that, I forget. But of course I understand, he did a great service for you. As being an advocate for Hillary earlier this year, you just had no idea the Clinton's were conflicted at all, or that both parties were corrupt, and had no skepticism of media coverage of the campaign before this, so I understand he was the agent of a great epiphany in you. And with great zeal, you boldly parachuted into our post election analysis with the true dope on the Clintons, and the parties and the media, and gave us your new guidance for which we all owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank You!

Unfortunately the news doesn't get any better about our President Elect. I figured I'd be gracious and give Trump the benefit of the doubt that if he was faced with winning the popular vote and losing in the electoral college, he would accept the verdict and not throw the country into turmoil, but now it appears not. Back in 2012,on the night of the election between Obama and Mitt Romney. Trump actually tweeted this: "Obama lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election, We should have a revolution in this country". If he's talking about a revolution in an election he's not even in, How would he have any restraint in an election he was directly involved in?. He later deleted the tweet. Of course the conclusions he was basing this incitement on were totally false. Not that it mattered to him.

Jesus Cliff!, I was trying to engage in a friendly conversation with Glenn! That's ok, Glenn, I don't think you're a Fascist-apologist. ,

Wow, that's quite an analogy Glenn. Isn't an election more like a Super Bowl? Isn't it all finished in one day? I don't suppose I could appeal to you by saying "all lives matter?"

No, I understand that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the architects of it when there were 13 states in 1788 or so. Each state had their origins and traditions and were very independent of each other and didn't want one state to become so populous that they started ruling the others. It made more sense when there were so few states.