Kirk Gallaway

Agreed Sandy, I fully expect Koch to scoop Ted Cruz next! But he'll claim his Dad was innocent! I'm sure $98 for 100 pages would be a "interesting" bargain for Koch!

Just to clue the kiddies, Paul had a career as a gynecologist, and has a generous pension as a Congressman. And with good investment over the course of his long career, it wouldn't be at all outrageous for Paul to make a over a million a year in his retirement years. And to this you could add speaking engagements and the sales from this book that Koch is plugging. So Paul's political message is his "talking his own book" and getting paid for it. And of course Paul has to be aware for years that the obvious answer his opponents could counter to his claims of Social Security becoming insolvent would be to apply the SS taxes on all that million dollar income instead of the first 140,000. He obviously has to know that the vast majority of people would have to be stupid to adopt his concept of taxation and sees his success over generations at keeping his wealth as evidence of that fact. Another mega wealthy Republican Presidential hopeful* striving to downplay expectations and break the bad news of diminishing Social Security retirement benefits to the lowly masses and future generations is North Dakota Governor Doug Borgum. "Do you really expect to see a paycheck!", Then when challenged with lifting the cap on Social Security Tax by Saagar and Krystal Ball. Watch how he twists in knots, diverting into China, energy policy, Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, and then in obfuscation, he's left to cry out "class warfare" to the laughter of Saagar and Ball! And in the end, after 10 minutes he still won't be honest and just come out and say he wants to cut retirement and medical benefits! Obviously that exchange wasn't in Borgum's "playbook". Could you really imagine Tucker asking these questions? Of course, the obvious question is, why isn't anyone from the mainstream media asking these Republican phony baloneys these questions?

What has this really got to do with the JFKA other than a another Republican con politician with no special knowledge of the assassination exploiting it it for political influence, just like Roger Stone.. Ron Paul is a one issue politician who represents billionaires, the mega rich and corporate interests who don't want to pay taxes, or at least as little as possible, but however is distinguished in his honesty that he wants to screw you and take away your social security, retirement benefits and medical care. To that end, he'll relentlessly attack government*, who through taxation are the only means to redress wealth inequality, standing in his way. *He says all the safety net is going to bankrupt the nation anyway. When in reality if you just raised the cap to start taxing all personal annual income of over 140,000 a year, Social Security would be solvent indefinitely! Currently no ones pays a dime of income to SS over $140 K income. There's not a chance in hell if any of Paul's Republican bids for the presidency were to come true that Paul would serve over one term. Paul's stated aim of starvation of the "administrative state" would dry up all government activity outside of defense and render the U.S. economy into a barren wasteland, all the while proclaiming it some victory for "liberty"! Either Paul is deluded to see that as a last ditch necessary reset or he's naively stupid to actually think a super trickle down would then magically ensue that would save everybody although there's no evidence in the past that supports that idea at all. Either way he's deluded.

Interesting post Doug! I have 3 older siblings born during those years. What's also interesting is this. But it has no effect on the electoral college, which is key.

I've actually listened a lot to RK, including most of this clip. I'm not going to get mean spirited. I haven't seen that you are at all issue oriented, and I didn't expect you to take offense at that. Paul, Any candidate saying identical things, whose easier to listen to, who wasn't a Kennedy wouldn't get your time of day. That's the truth! Check out the link below. Now that you're in it this far . At this point, Might as well give up girlfriends! It's the least you can do. Heh heh I'm informing you that's a joke, so I don't appear incomprehensible! This is what I mean by "issues". Are you sure you're "to the left" of us? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-says-sign-federal-ban-abortions-three-months-pregnancy-rcna99689

All the (Former) President’s Lawyers Donald Trump’s PACs have spent millions of dollars on a small army of lawyers to defend him in four separate federal and state criminal cases. Lists Trump lawyers and how much paid. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/us/politics/trump-lawyers-fees.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20230817&instance_id=100252&nl=the-morning&regi_id=61798350&segment_id=142236&te=1&user_id=48552702f942aacb0810b9de5ca41c55

Rigby, has definitely been doing his chronological research on the Biden crime family! That promised international date with Sydney Powell was a definite enticement! Rigby doesn't get out much anymore. It was good research, but I think Rigby got the order of aging reversed!

Time out for a second! Wow!

Paul, I suppose we'd have to look at each example you're talking about. But are you sure your "democratic bubble" is not just an intolerance of a free press of people who disagree with you, and maybe from time to time show their bias, like any humans? I haven't seen much evidence in your posts that you're informed citizen enough that policies even matter to you. It looks like your RK following is ,just in my thinking a naive trust that whatever he does will be in all good people's interests. I do think that characterizes the nature of a lot of his appeal as a candidate among his followers and particularly on this forum, where it ranges from a very visceral sort of attraction to an outright blood worship. IMO

Of course, he was only 14. You're now being told by Talbot he first learned all this from Talbot at the age of 50 in 2004! You realize now all of his knowledge is from Talbot and other Dulles did it authors? I don't want this to sound conspiratorial, but in regards to these matters, he's being groomed. But we don't have to focus on that. Roger, I've been wondering whether to comment. I admire your spirit and I want to be kind and constructive.. But I see a lot of projection here. So they know completely what's going down at all times and they're not Little Red Riding Hoods riding through the dark forest of CIA, NSA agents who always seem to suck them in like Sheridan, who tried to hoodwink Bobby to accept that Garrison's case was a fraud, and after 30 years, went to his deathbed, keeping that a secret as Jim Di says? heh heh That jokes not on you Roger! Ok, so first things first. Let's put the Vietnam War and the race riots on hold and get to the bottom of this, right?. Ok, the fun's over. This is the focus! If you didn't know before, you know now that you are talking to someone who actually lived through that era. Honestly Roger, That sounds like the kind of impression you would only get by listening to some of the JFKA centric "parachuting" into the 60's kind of distortion of some deluded JFKA authors. I'm going to give you a more comprehensive, rather sobering alternative viewpoint. I can almost get from that, the other issues 1.The Vietnam War and 2. the race riots were just a distraction from the JFKA. But I know you've never seen anything like this in your life. "About 15 million Americans took part in the demonstration of October 15, making it the largest protests in a single day up to that point. A second round of "Moratorium" demonstrations was held on November 15 and attracted more people than the first." There was more civil unrest than anything we've seen since, including now. And we're just talking Americans, Roger. We're not even talking about world protest! I'm sure the number of Vietnam protesters in the 1965-74 period was well over 100 million. Who is motivated to protest the "American war machine" now? Nobody! . How many people were in the civil rights marches in the 60's. I don't have total estimates in any case. But I did get this. "Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr. More than 200,000 people of all races congregated in Washington, D. C. for the peaceful march with the main purpose of forcing civil rights legislation and establishing job equality for everyone." I would say the total number of people protesting at Civil Rights events everywhere in the 60's could be in the 10's of millions. And of course, there were dozens of race riots, with deaths in almost every major city in the second half of the 60's! Of course, it's not a fair comparison, but how many people protested the Warren report in the 60's? Zero! It was left to the grit of small time people. A truly grass roots movement. But these numbers matter to politicians. Maybe you can better gauge now the scope of the problems facing RFK when he would take office. This Vietnam War and race riots aren't a joke. And the JFKA wasn't the elephant in the room, but in the overall picture, maybe a gnat! I don't think establishing an investigation into his brother's death would even be in the Congress's top 10! It's his own project. He'll get heat from it unless it produces definitive results. So you're a Dulles did it guy?. So bringing Allen Dulles to justice, is no sweat? Are you kidding me? Do you realize that would take years? He's about to die anyway. We currently have a case in Georgia about fixing an election that at least up to now, it's taking them 3 years to make up their minds if they even want to indict where there's a smoking gun tape that's about as hard evidence as you could have and they can subpoena e mails, which didn't exist back then. And in this case, if RFK fails, in what his detractors would then call a self indulgent witch hunt. That could jeopardize his peace plan and a lot of efforts he could make to eventually unify the country. Which is a goal that involved 200 million people! Talbot's "foregone conclusion"---no way!

Apparently i haven't "covered my bases" well enough Paul. So I enclosed what I wrote so you might read it again.I wasn't even 18 and you had to be 21 at the time to vote. I first liked the guy who first started the political movement in opposition to the war, Eugene Mc Carthy, who was a super long shot! So I liked the guy who started the anti war political movement that exposed LBJ's weakness in the New Hampshire primary that caused RFK to enter the race. If it's ok with you Paul, I did have some allegiance to him. He was the original, and I compared his campaign in some ways, to Bernie Sanders. Paul: but basically you blame RFK anyway. False, I assigned no blame at all. Paul: and it’s always cast as politics being the art of the possible, as if nominating a true alternative candidate would always be doomed. False, I never even implied that. It's just the opposite. I thought RFK upon entering the campaign had an infinitely better chance of beating LBJ than Mc Carthy, and I looked forward to that. It was going to be the battle of the base against the establishment of the Democratic party. I did not see RFK as a long shot at all! I had been prepared to back a much greater long shot. But that situation lasted, I think for about 2 weeks when LBJ then dropped out. And I also mentioned to you that I liked the changes that I thought was going on in RFK and his campaign in California, read again.

I couldn't believe this! Mitch Mc Connel is being very loudly shouted down by his Kentuckian base, who are whipping themselves into a frenzy chanting RE-TI-ER!, and Mc Connell goes on obliviously seeming to mumble almost inaudibly because you can't hear him! This would almost seem like cruelty to the aged. But are Kentuckians actually getting hep to the idea that Mc Connell's legacy has only been tax cuts for the rich and trying to screw all these people by denying them their future retirement benefits, and medical care and insulin? Starts near 1:45. Incidentally, in the JFKA forum. I've seen that Mervyn come into the JFKA forum from time to time in the past always with the same result! Cotter first reminded me of a sort of just as eccentric, but less JFKA read version of him, with his sort of lower case fussiness and substantive discussions getting lost in silly persnickety claims about verbiage. Check him out!.

Of course the Nixon Humphrey election in 1968 was very close, with Humphrey closing in in the last couple of weeks. Humphrey was LBJ's VP and was tied to LBJ's Vietnam war policy, and the Democrats were suffering mightily in the polls because of the riots at the Chicago Convention. Both of these hurt Humphrey. I wonder if Mc Carthy had supported Humphrey even a month earlier. Would that have been enough to pull Humphrey over the top? It's really a shame because if Humphrey had become President, we almost certainly would have had expanded Health Care 50 years ago and a single payer system because that issue was his baby! Regarding RFK ruining Mc Carthy, there's no question about that. But it is interesting that just before the California primary, Mc Carthy did beat RFK in Oregon! But if RFK didn't enter the race, the Democratic establishment would have gone with the incumbent LBJ. Because of the sequence of events, I think LBJ dropped out because he feared running against RFK, and had had enough of the protests and the fact that he had rightfully been turned into a villain for his Vietnam War policy.

Walinsky;He had an acute understanding of how difficult that kind of investigation is, even if you had all the power of the presidency." He's the only real direct source so far. That's why it's important. And he's talking about the problems involved in investigating. He's not saying. we were definitely going to start an investigation into his brother's death. I do agree with Walinsky, more than you do. You do remember Paul. I said, Bobby would have more on his plate than any President since FDR! I don't buy Talbot's assertion that this was a foregone conclusion. No one can prove one way of the other. Paul, I was in High School and into Eugene Mc Carthy's anti war campaign. Then after the New Hampshire primary showed LBJ was weak because of the Vietnam War. Bobby entered the race. I was a little bit pissed because Bobby was a johnny come lately to the anti war cause, but I was young and sort of facing that this was the way political things happen. But I did regret that Mc Carthy was the first politician to make a political anti war movement, (sort of similar economically to 2016 Bernie Sanders) and yet would be ultimately swept aside, but I knew the force was with Bobby, Then in the next few months, I liked where his campaign was going and what I saw was a change of consciousness , he befriended Caesar Chavez and he was campaigning in California a lot, and he was given the mantle of the poor and dispossessed, and not just the anti war movement. Being into both of them, and knowing Bobby was going to step on toes which is what I saw myself sort of doing in my small way, I really looked forward to his campaign and beating Nixon again. Actually a lot of politicians who were young at that time will say they entered politics because of Bobby Kennedy's influence including Biden. Is that good enough, Paul,? Do i get to stay here? Remember your earlier comment. "What are you doing here?" I've got a SF story for you Paul. I believe It was in October 1968, I remember going with some of my friends up to SF to see Eugene Mc Carthy. At that point people were badgering him to support Dem candidate Hubert Humphrey. All the state Dems were there, Pat Brown and Jerry Brown, Mayor Joe Alioto, John Burton and Willie Brown and I think Jesse Unruh, My friends and I were all impressed how all these guys particularly Alioto look immaculate close up with every hair in place!. We were wondering if Mc Carthy would make news and throw his support to Humphrey, but he disappointed the party hacks and said he would not support any candidate at that time. As I recall, he did support Humphrey maybe the day before the election.

Good work, Ron! Thanks! That's more what I remember. Your quotes from Devil's Chessboard answers most of the outstanding questions but this tape sequence here tends to completely muddle everything concerning Bobby reopening the case as President. Walinsky: "One of the things you learned around Kennedy, you learned what it was to be serious," said RFK's Senate aide Adam Walinsky. "Serious people, when faced with something like that-you don't speculate out loud about it. . . . He had an acute understanding of how difficult that kind of investigation is, even if you had all the power of the presidency." Paul: Kirk assumed the source was Walinsky. It doesn’t say that Paul, read what Ron wrote again. Walinsky is our only direct source. That's exactly what it says. Walinsky alludes to the idea that he knew Bobby was considering launching an investigation but was well aware of the problems involved. What's strange is Walinsky is still alive and has been around many years and has been a very public figure. I don't why he would hold this as such a secret now for 50 years. If he were now to come out with the fact that Bobby had such suspicions he wanted to act on, it would probably be a good for RK's campaign. I'll grant the overall pickup wouldn't be much but the fact that RK's claims are not alone but was shared by his Father boosts his credibility. Talbot is not a source, Paul. Who else is a source here? Yet curiously Talbot doesn't use his canon, Walinsky's quote but prefers to use, of all people Walter Sheridan's widow Nancy, whose not even a direct source! And then he in essence further credits her by crediting Walter Sheridan, saying Bobby was using a "top investigator" in Walter Sheridan but doesn't mention to us (or RK?) the context that Bobby used Sheridan to look into Garrison's investigation and that was, in essence a bust! And you're left to imply that RK and Sheridan were going to launch this case when they got into office. Anybody new to the case, would eventually find that a misdirection. And this all leads to Talbot saying positively that Bobby was going to launch an investigation into his brother''s death But even his best quote, Walinsky's only suggest Bobby had "an acute understanding of how difficult that kind of investigation is, even if you had all the power of the presidency!" Which I'll tell you is true! Bobby would have more on his plate than any President since FDR! I don't buy that this was a foregone conclusion. To answer your question Paul, I gave you a thumbnail about what I think of Talbot on my first post, which is favorable. We're all familiar with Talbot. If you stick with his passage from DC, you're pretty consistent. But about this clip, It's like a different person delivered it. I'll just say, What a completely disjointed presentation.

Ron, So in page 608 of Devil's Chessboard, Talbot says it was Walinsky who confirmed that RFK was going to launch into an investigation into his brother's death? Do you have a copy to confirm? I'm a little confused. Or Is "One of the things you've learned" a separate title of an interview by Talbot with Walinsky? Thanks

Yeah Re: RFK, I would say, roll back a little of what his uncle did, and slap a wealth tax on his ass! See how he'd like that! I've seen nothing like that in his platform. Maybe he's become so desperate, he's going to start mentioning actual policies and throw us a few crumbs! The irony is, if he had taken up where his father left off, and had a platform more like Bernie Sanders.and lost some of his eccentricities, We might have a real interesting race right now. But he doesn't have it in him. Instead he actually attacks Biden from the right? What an idiot!

Hey Cliff, Rigby actually finds the Hunter Biden lap top story "horrifying". Imagine how dysfunctional he'd become if he actually lived here and absorbed the myriad of impressions flowing in all the time! * Our American Exceptional ability to suck attention from abroad is unparalleled! We win the battle of demoralization without even firing a shot! *I read an even more horrifying headline for Rigby just today. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been having an unexpectedly hard time in Hollywood!

I agree completely W. A strong tone must be set at the onset, and never waver! My thoughts: I do have some regrets that Garland seemed to waste so much time before giving it over to Smith, who did pick up the ball running. I think we might have even started having some trials soon if Smith had started running the cases from the beginning. It works out to Trump's advantage and very polarizing that the bulk of this is going to go on in during the primaries and election campaign. What a podunk state Georgia is that they've still haven't indicted, despite having smoking gun tape evidence! But if Trump is convicted and his followers start causing trouble. We've got to resolutely squash them. No apologies!

I understand Ron, too politically sensitive for the forum. This sleuthing thing can only go so far, right? heh heh

I hate writing out transcripts: I did queue you as to where it is but. To RK: Talbot: "your father was working in secretly with some top investigators of his, like Walter Shreridan. I interviewed Nancy Sheridan, his widow. I knew RFK and Sheridan were looking into the investigation." Why is he mentioning her at all if she's not a source? It's actually a person and not "his closest aides" . Why didn't he mention the names of the aides? But again you're missing the point entirely. Pam's weighed in. What do you say to this conflict? (below) It's as stark as day and night!