Kirk Gallaway

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!

In this film clip , My favorite Congresswoman Katie Porter directly takes on a Defense contractor whose screwing the American taxpayer. Porter: There's too little Congressional oversight and too much taxpayer money padding the pockets of Big Defense. I will not stop calling out corporate abuse from companies like TransDigm, and I hope more of my colleagues do the right thing for taxpayers. Quote Tweet Rep. Katie Porter @RepKatiePorter · Jan 19, 2022 In an internal email, a salesperson for TransDigm—a defense contractor—bragged about "being full of B.S." but still making a deal that ripped off taxpayers. Today, I confronted TransDigm's Executive Chairman about the company's price gouging. His response? No comment.

I don't think I'd go that far to compare the speeches. But people here might read the entire text of the American University speech instead of just watching the snippets "Pax Americana" and "After all, we all breathe the same air." But it was a great speech and those will always be great aspirational snippets for generations to come as well. . But I was also very surprised at the time when I first saw JFK's speech in Fort Worth about how hawkish the last speech of JFK's life was. And Michael has shown quotes of this here as well . As I said earlier and some here threw a conniption fit, politicians play to the audiences they're addressing and JFK wasn't exempt. Notice how in his final line when JFK talks about the U.S. keeping the peace and promoting it's interest, he says, "To that great cause, Texas and the United States is committed". The body of the speech is between 3:10 and 13:10. https://youtu.be/nTFqG64Oqac I might disagree with that but maybe a tad left leaning of the center. And being left of center was the right place to be during the Civil Rights movement, as the nation was polarizing but middle class whites could now see the virulent American style of racism being played out on their tv's and watch the progress of MLK and the Civil Rights marches. And when confronted, JFK took the lead. without a doubt and massive tax cuts for the wealthy, but not near what it is now. A lot of times here when we hear about JFK concerning the unions, it's about the steel crisis which was really more JFK railing against the steel magnates for raising the price of steel 6 more dollars per ton, than it was really pro labor. But earlier as a Senator JFK did sponsor a labor act to clean up the unions. He was no Hubert Humphrey, but I'd say he's just a tad left leaning of center there. Yes, but he almost didn't have a choice on that. But after going to the brink of an abyss with the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was going to seize the unique opportunity for peace as he was in the rare position of being a foreign policy liberal who had shown his mettle in dealing with the Soviets. I'm no expert. But I've never believed JFK was going to be completely out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. But I know he would never have made near the commitment to Vietnam LBJ made. I think probably in the first year of his new term, he would have started disengaging, just like Joe Biden did, but more gradually to mitigate his political embarrassment. The only factor that could have modified that slightly would be how the war went in the 18 months following his assassination. IMO

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is "the unspeakable" act of the 21st century. All of our hopes of decreasing spending toward the war machine are dashed. Our best hope now is that it's a 5-10 year detour of increased defense spending. But it looks like there will be some areas of damage that may not get better. And guess what, the complete release of the JFKA files is not going to make a dent in that. So whatever fantasies you have about that, you might as well start trying to deal with the world as it is. But by that, I don't mean to advocate and can understand why people would be against U.S. funding of the war. It's interesting that Jim trots out Jeffrey Sachs and just to give you another viewpoint. I read a Socialist leaning publication a few years back that was dealing with the question of what happened to Russia after the Soviet Union dissolved and they attacked Jeffrey Sachs as making a number of economic proposals in the 90's that the Russians adopted with disastrous results! While conceding that the Russians didn't necessarily follow all the recommendations of the Western economists. Anyway, I just thought it was worth mentioning.

So you haven't seen the video that is the topic of this thread? I gave you my source. It's Talbot himself at 4:44. I'll say it again Ron, Talbot credits himself in 2004 with being the first one to set RK straight about his Father suspecting a conspiracy. What you should have got , if you hadn't risen to defend to check every book source you could find, is that there is a conflict between Talbot's opinion of Sheridan being a reputable source that Bobby was going to use to re open his brother's murder case when he became President, and Jim who claims that Sheridan is NSA, CIa because Sheridan investigated Garrison and told Bobby that Garrison's case was a fraud and was a producer of an NBC documentary on the assassination. . As far as Sheridan's connections to intelligence, I already laid that out for you and none of those connections were any secret. If you're so incensed to be Jim's point man in this conflict, be my guest, but leave me out of it! All these issues I tried to spell out for you but you become too emotional to really read. Try watching Talbot's video and calmly read what I said again.

Lots of blurriness, obstruction and counter claims. Sheridan's ties to intelligence don't appear to be a great secret. From Wiki Sheridan joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation, resigning after four years over J. Edgar Hoover's focus on anti-Communism.[4] As Sheridan later put it, "Hoover was more interested in guys who were Communists for 15 minutes in 1931 than he was in guys who were stealing New Jersey."[1] He was then a National Security Agency investigator for three years.[1][4] Sheridan was an investigator for the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management, recruited to its staff by Robert F. Kennedy in 1957.[1][2] He was a regional coordinator for John F. Kennedy's 1960 presidential campaign, and a coordinator for the Robert F. Kennedy presidential campaign, 1968.[4] After Robert Kennedy was appointed Attorney General in 1961, Sheridan became a special assistant to Kennedy working as the effective chief of a team investigating Hoffa and the Teamsters.[3] From 1965 to 1970, he was an NBC News special correspondent, producing documentaries on crime and gun control among other issues;[4] his unit received a Peabody Award for work on the 1967 Detroit riot.[3] Sheridan also covered the 1967 prosecution of Clay Shaw by Jim Garrison, and in 1967 produced an hour-long special for NBC on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[6] Ok, since we're talking about Talbot. Let's drop Jim Di's Sheridan's "clandestine" claims just for now. The Sheridan interview is at the very earliest a year after RFK's assassination, because he talks of Clay Shaw's acquittal. and his official story about the Garrison investigation is that it's a fraud. So Talbot first informed RK about his father's investigation into the death of his brother using Sheridan whose official statement well after RFK's death is that he looked into Garrison's ongoing investigation and thought it was a fraud. And then in 1967 produced an hour-long special for NBC on the JFK assassination essentially promoting the WC findings. But he was then knowingly retained by RFK to be a major coordinator of his Presidential campaign in 1968! And Talbot cites his source as an interview with Sheridan''s widow after Sheridan's death in 1995. But why cite that source at all if it Talbot had had knowledge that Bobby had sent Sheridan to look into the Garrison investigation. So he apparently didn't? So to believe Talbot, the only explanation would be that Sheridan secretly continued his own investigation that produced such great results, that Bobby was encouraged to want to open a new investigation into his brother's death when he became President. But if Bobby were to become President and execute this plan, wouldn't he look bad for quashing Garrrison's investigation earlier? And there are no files. What am I missing? None of RK's initiation into the JFKA adds up well.

Ron, We already did the background with Sheridan and Garrison So Ron, to clarify, This is your quote from Jim below . Whose here and undoubtedly reading this. And yet apparently Talbot, who used Sheridan's wife as a source, doesn't know this or he would have told RK this, and told us this in the interview, because after all there's no point in keeping it silent, if Sheridan is in fact, NSA and interfaces with Angleton, as Jim alleges. Right?

Yeah, but he's never offered any specifics and really doesn't allude to having any special knowledge. And if those files existed, and were of any value that they could be used to buttress his campaign, why wouldn't he use them? It would be big news here!.

That's assuming his Father conducted a detailed investigation and there are files. That's what I've said. I don't think RK has any special knowledge or any specifics at all. But he is impressionable. He was initiated by Talbot and groomed into the Dulles -Did-It authors, including Jim Di. I should say I tend to hold a CIA involvement in a plurality among existing theories. Then when he finally outed his thinking that the CIA killed his Father and Uncle, and launched his campaign, many here saw that as further validation that they'd always been right, but that isn't necessarily the case at all.

When a asked a simple question to clarify his own statement. John first manufacturers a question he never asked with a question mark. ? He's accommodated in good faith. Still no answer, and he's still 48 hours out. What a charade! Stop trying to B. S. us John.

No, please tell me about it. What did he uncover?

This interview was first posted by Doug in the Water Cooler thread. I enjoyed "Devil chessboard" a lot and consider Talbot a good author who IMO, didn't get caught lunging at a lot of other low hanging fruit in the JFKA. The issue as to how RK first became curious as to his father and uncle's death has always been a curiosity for me as the Kennedy family, by their silence, has been so obstructionist to the the investigation of the JFKA. How did RK find out, and become converted? Talbot credits himself as having first informed RK in 2004. At the time, he says RK was barely able to look him in the eye and said the family always told the siblings to "look ahead", and besides RK said his father was content not to further investigate his brother's assassination. Talbot then corrected him and told RK that Bobby indeed was going to open up an investigation into his brother's death when he became President. The source of Talbot's claim was the widow of Walter Sheridan, who was the effective chief of Bobby's team investigating Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters, who died in 1995 and apparently was silent about it for the next 27 years! Does anyone here know of any other witnesses to this fact? This is the same Walter Sheridan who RFK sent down to look into Garrison's investigation, which upon Sheridan's investigation, later concluded that Garrison's investigation was a fraud and then Garrison became convinced that Bobby was trying to stop his investigation into the murder of his brother, and accused Sheridan of "public bribery". ? I read an interview with Sheridan from the JFK Library where he talks mostly of the RFK campaign in California in 1968 and goes briefly into the night of the assassination, but makes no reference to Bobby saying he was going to open an investigation into his brother's death when he became President. Why is so much of the Kennedy past enshrouded in secrecy? There's so much conjecture! It is remarkable that RK and the 13 siblings of RFK and JFK spent the entire 20th century silent about the assassination of JFK and RFK, and RK apparently never talked to anyone or even entertained this idea until he was 50 years old! And the reason RK gave Talbot is that they were instructed by their family back in the 60's. Whew!

Hey, Didn't Glenn Greenwald say that free speech in the West was a real bitch!

Oh come Roger , You were too lazy to even take the time to find out what this thread is about. This not remotely connected to JFK's speech. By that scrimpy criterion, the RK spamming would go on like it did a month ago on this forum. This is like a Ron de Santis journal burning Ben Cole diatribe against freelance writers who don't agree with him, and painting all their actions as Operation Mockingbird and you were too lazy to even go there and see what was going on, and now you're just continuing your months long filibuster to the mods for front billing, because you want attention but are not prepared to give the commensurate substance. But if you are, go to "Political discussions". It's that simple! How To Find "Political Discussions"? That's not to mention that this is a silly needless thread that could have been done with a simple PM to the mods, but that wouldn't suck enough attention..