Kirk Gallaway

Michael: Until yesterday, I assumed that everyone in this forum knew the basic facts about Liberty Lobby and their founder Willis Carto, That's true, there's only been a very superficial interest in the Liberty Lobby concerning Hunt's litigation.That's a little like people who come here from the right, never hearing of the Koch Bros. But Geez, Can we at least admit Michael knows more about the Liberty Lobby than anyone else here? What I see is Michael's has made all the recent points here, making a pretty solid case that it's not likely Prouty doesn't know who the Liberty Lobby is. And there's been zero points made against his assertions except an attempt to make this issue about Michael himself and impugn his motives on this thread, and now another thread,, which is always a tactic of people who are losing the argument. You have a choice, whether to really bone up and attack Michael's repeated incidents of Prouty support for the Liberty Lobby or try to attack Michael's assertion further that Prouty is L. Ron Hubbard fan, while if true, by itself wouldn't be a deal breaker, but is just more icing on the cake. Or 2) choose to let it ride and say it's impossible to know what was going on in Prouty's head, and damn it, I believe him! Chris: We tend to ever increasingly fall into the emotional thinking, attacking the man as opposed to specifically what they have said, the matter in contention. I'm not sure I would call that emotional, Chris. If Prouty spent several years as an ardent defender of the Liberty Lobby, it says a whole lot about his judgment. But it's true, it's not a reason to dismiss everything he says whole cloth, as I previously said. But let's examine your emotional thinking point from the other side. This forum is heavily wedded to Oliver Stone's "JFK". It is a movie without a climax per se. The most powerful moment by everyone's account here is the meeting between Garrison and Prouty. That is the revealing moment of the movie. The articulation of the "whodunit." Now we, who have invested so much emotion in that scene, and now the title of this thread has been turned from a title that originally implied everybody who denies Prouty's assertions is a crackpot to having to entertain the assertion that maybe Prouty himself is a crackpot! That is a very bitter pill to swallow. This of course was never going to be accepted here gracefully. I felt like I was the only one in this forum who felt any disappointment in Prouty when he folded like a lounge chair in front of that questioning body Prouty stood before.* He didn't stick up for anything he had previously said! Didn't that bother anybody here? And I know there are factors we can't know, such as Prouty's fear maybe of losing his pension etc. My guess is that's because Prouty then becomes like a Garrison martyr figure here, who later lost his confidence and came off very badly in public appearances but we sympathize with his frustration, just as we sympathize with Prouty's capitulation because both of them are being grinded down by the deep state. I think the evidentiary basis for the JFKAC still holds up very well, Thank you, without some cleverly written dialog in a movie, or even Prouty's viewpoint. By that, I'm not saying, he has no credibility. I just don't have to believe him. * I assume his assertions about getting rid of Trujillo were after his testimony, or it would have really interesting if he was questioned about making that assertion. Of course not saying it couldn't be true.

So I was wondering if that could be said Ron. So I investigated a little and found out things I didn't remember at first. Hunt sued Liberty Lobby – but not the Sunday News Journal – for libel. Liberty Lobby stipulated, in this first trial, that the question of Hunt's alleged involvement in the assassination would not be contested. Hunt prevailed and was awarded $650,000 damages. I assume only a handful of people here know that. I had forgotten. But in the second Liberty Lobby lawsuit Lane does some excellent cross examining of Hunt. I remember this now, involving his kids.. Then lane ties Hunt to Marita Lorenz's story, even though it should be mentioned, for whatever it's worth, the HSCA had previously discarded her story, though Blakey, obviously was never interested in tying the CIA to the JFKA. But in the retrial, it is critical to establish Liberty Lobby had malice. And Liberty Lobby won. To support his position, Lane cites jury Foreperson Leslie Armstrong. Lane describes Armstrong’s statements to the media as follows:Juror Armstrong said:The evidence was clear, she said. The CIA had killed President Kennedy. Hunt had been part of it, and that evidence, so painstakingly presented should now be examined by the relevant institutions of the United States government so that those responsible for the assassination might be brought to justice. Armstrong apparently did say that, and doubtless believed it. But there were five other jurors. Two of them told the Miami Herald that they most certainly did not believe that Lane had proven that Hunt was a conspirator. Suzanne Reach said that “We were very disgusted and felt it was trash . . . . The paper published material that was sloppy – but it wasn’t malicious.” Reach added that “We were worried that our verdict might give the wrong impression to the public” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “absolutely not” the reason for the verdict. The Herald also quoted another juror, who refused to be identified, saying that the verdict was the result of Hunt failing to demonstrate that the article was published with “reckless disregard for the truth,” and added that Lane’s conspiracy theories were “so much extraneous matter.” Thus, depending on whether the unidentified juror in the Miami Herald story is the same person as the juror quoted by the Associated Press, three or four of the six jurors went on record as denying Lane’s claims to have proven a conspiracy. Anyway, interesting link. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/denial.htm

Yes in fact I do make judgments about Mitt Romney and his historic ties to Corporate America. But as far as his credentials, he is consistent in that he's a long time member of Congress and ran for the Presidency, and he has dreams of taking his party back. It's like in this forum. To the vast majority here, there are 2 groups, pro JFK conspiracy and LNers. I'm aligned with former. But that doesn't matter so much to me, I separate it into 2 categories, those who want to have an intellectually honest discussion and those who run away from it. Sandy, it sounds like you're assuming to know the various factions that supposedly once existed in the Liberty Lobby, and that Prouty's politics could only be respectable?

I have no idea about the extent of involvement with Fletcher Prouty and the Liberty Lobby. All I've ever heard here about the Liberty Lobby is their successful win in court against E.Howard Hunt. But I had some exposure to their newsletter, as a teenager. They sent their newsletter, the Spotlight out to my Dad, who was a Republican. I read it and I did remember language about international money conspiracies and some sort of veiled Anti Semitism. It was my first sort of contact with that. The next such contact I remember that struck me as similar was Lyndon La Rouche, but with colorful, tabloid stories about powerful politicians. These guys clearly weren't good guys. Just because they beat E. Howard Hunt about being in Dallas, doesn't mean they're good guys and more than a super MAGA induced new JFK convert like Roger Stone is. They probably don't wheel out there big knives on their publication, but use it to draw in people to come to their forums. I do have an anecdotal story. I remember as a teenager, the Spotlight came out with a front page headline claiming the Beatles were steering youth toward Communism , specifically with their song, "Back in the U.S.S.R". That told me very overtly these guys were wacko. I mentioned it to my Dad, and he concurred that that is what he thought too. It's one thing to banish somebody because of an early association. That was done time and time again in the Mc Carthy hearings. But for a log standing association, should that exist , it is relevant as to his judgment. Just like I'm waiting to see RFK Jr., apart from clearing up his vaccine position, quickly and thoroughly renounce any association with Roger Stone,or Steve Banon, IMO for example. If someone had a long term association with a group like the Liberty Lobby and didn't know any of the major tenants of that organization's belief system. Like a sort of sleepwalking Reagan, that isn't good either. P.S. Sandy, Bill Maher is also going to do an interview with Tucker Carlson. Though Carlson's producers wanted to just talk about stuff they both agree about, and Maher refused. I don't think Larry will have any of that problem. How could anybody not want to see more people from the opposite ideology come on Carlson's show? But long term associations with nut job organizations, if that in fact did happen, without a thorough explanation why, did he really explain ? Are not to be wholly dismissed. Of course that doesn't mean that everything he says should be dismissed whole cloth. But these are all factors that must be taken in account to determine someone's credibility.

Trump interview with Tucker Carlson Wow! Can you believe the contortions Carlsen makes at looking enthralled at Trump, (when usually he's such scrub face!). in this interview since Trump was indicted! That means Trump knows that Carlsen said in those private tweets that he hated Trump passionately, and Trump was a destroyer, a demonic force, and as a president was a disaster. Are we supposed to understand that these 2 guys are just so ambitious. Their game is to use each other to squeeze every bit of marketability out of it they can, No matter how much they may dislike each other. And it leads to Trump 2024 and Carlsen back in his driver's seat. It was a softball kiss ass interview. But for now, everything continues, their audience is just dumbstruck to be in their own living room, listening to these great men. And no more need be said.

It turns out now, just like Trump and his Mueller Report spinner William Barr had a falling out. Now Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi have had a falling out. Maybe Musk wasn't satisfied that Taibbi didn't successfully convince anyone about the Twitter Files. But the cover story is: Matt Taibbi quit the microblogging website after he claimed it blocked access to embedding tweets with posts on the online publishing platfotrm, Substack. Twitter also won't allow any retweets, likes or engagement with posts that contain links to Substack articles, Taibbi claimed "It turns out Twitter is upset about the news Substack notes feature which they see as a hostile rival. Taibbl wrote in a Substack post ."The craziest Friday ever", adding "I'm staying at Substack".... There's been a lot of hanging on to Greenwald and Taibbi from people who unthinkingly mimic their old heroes because they don't have the critical judgment to see when time has passed them by. IMO Similarly, I think Barr and TaibbiI found out the heroes they thought they were working for are assholes. If they had just listened to us first! https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/why-journalist-matt-taibbi-substack-and-elon-musks-twitter-are-at-loggerheads/articleshow/99354028.cms

That's right Michael. Kennedy won every state you mentioned in 1960 except for Alabama and Mississippi where they split the votes, but segregationist Harry Byrd won the majority of Electoral votes over Kennedy.. in 1964, Kennedy would have lost the south, including S. Carolina but would have held on to everything else he had in 1960 except Goldwater's Arizona, but he would have gained California, (Nixon's home state in 1960), and the West Coast, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida.

This isn't a RFK comment. It was just the most recent reference to the Cal Neva Lodge I could find. I just thought people might be interested. The Cal Neva lodge, which from the time I first saw it at 18 years old, I thought was kind of a dump,though it was never in a glitzy neighborhood , despite all the star power at one time behind it, and then all the eventual history we've come to read. Well for the last 10 years, it's been shut down. It was owned by billionaire Larry Ellison. Now some new people have bought it and they are going to open it again! https://www.sfgate.com/renotahoe/article/lake-tahoe-cal-neva-resort-sold-17883366.php

Doug, I confess. I really wasn't taken that much with the Pope's fashion statement. I was having a joke with W. The 2 Pope photos he posted were also AI fakes. Bosom buddies. Tucker and Bolsonaro, making fun of the rain forest people! jej jej

I may stand corrected on that Paul. I read it was JFK negotiating with whoever the Governor was that freed MLK. But I did find this quote through KIng Institute Stanford. "Following a call to Atlanta judge J. Oscar Mitchell by Robert F. Kennedy, brother and campaign manager to John F. Kennedy, King is freed on $2,000 bond. King flies back to Atlanta and addresses a mass rally at Ebenezer." https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/mlk-topic/martin-luther-king-jr-arrests

Contemporary to that time. As for the NYT quote. Of course there are political stories of this nature written up all the time. Sometimes rather immediately and some times the info gets out a year later.. I don't assume back in the early 60's that the New York Times and Wapo has any reason to make the story up. They're all trying to get the inside scoop and they generally get along well with the Kennedy's. They honored a code of not delving onto JFK's private life as well as other politicians. It was nothing like it is today Paul. I'm not an expert on this, but I would say I expect the NYT article to be accurate, because it makes good sense. Bobby had no power. He acted as the campaign manager who was trying to win a campaign. I'm not sure what you're saying Paul, so you think the whole story involving JFK's brother in law Sargent Shriver and Wofford weren't involved at all, and didn't advise JFK to the phone Coretta King, and this was made up whole cloth?, but it was Bobby who told JFK to phone King? Well first there is a record that Coretta King was phoned. It's not impossible both things could have happened. Bobby didn't want the phone call to be made and made a last ditch effort and coerced the Sheriff to let King out.I hadn't heard that. Is there any other corroboration of the fact? and where? That's something maybe Jim Di can get a source. Paul: Do you suppose Junior just made it up? As I said, I have no idea Paul, he was only 7 years old, how would that incident be planted in his mind if it never happened? I don't know. .

This is my favorite, The Pope just seems to have a certain sort of flair!

I came upon this clip a few months ago of RFK Jr. talking about "Growing up Kennedy" on what looks to be a morning show. And it's rather timely now that he's is running for President. I've always felt his father, RFK had a much greater opportunity to be a great President than JFK. RFK Jr. comes off a little stiff but I found this program very interesting and insightful into what it was like to be brought up as a Kennedy in the 60's, and would recommend it to anyone here! But this might be a bit controversial, Around the 25 minute mark RFK Jr. recollects a story about his father regarding his actions on Oct.29th 1960, when Marin Luther King was thrown in jail in Mississippi. This was an October Surprise, only a week before the Presidential election between JFK and Nixon.. RFK Jr. said that his father Bobby phoned up the sheriff who was holding MLK and forcefully told him that he better release King now because, if he doesn't, once his brother gets elected in the following week, he'll make life hell for him in so many words. This however does not square with the news accounts of that period, which said RFK was not behind any activity to release King, but was livid when the news got out that his brother had phoned Coretta King to assure her he was dong all he could to secure King's release and from the NYT, Bobby said to his aides. Bobby had made the political calculations and didn’t like what it all added up to. “Do you know,” he fumed, “that three Southern governors told us that if Jack supported Jimmy Hoffa, Nikita Khrushchev, or Martin Luther King, they would throw their states to Nixon? Do you know that this election may be razor close and you have probably lost it for us?” Keep in mind, JFK hasn't been elected. Bobby was not Attorney General. Bobby was JFK's campaign manager, and this seems like a likely reaction from a campaign manager. All the records I've seen say Bobby had nothing to do with the release of MLK from jail. JFK had been working behind the scenes with the Mississippi Governor and it was JFK's brother in law Sargent Shriver and Civil Rights Attorney Jim Wofford who convinced JFK to phone Coretta King and bring JFK's sympathies out in the open. Bobby later got more involved in the civil rights movement for JFK as AG. The phone call to Coretta King turned out to be critical campaign move as MLK's father found out and endorsed JFK swinging a great many blacks to vote for JFK and ensure him the election. I'm not sure how RFK JR. could have made such a mistake in his accounting of the story but all major accounts including from the NYT and WAPO, and in recent years, the Daily Coz ( some here would say all CIA publications!) say Bobby had no real role in the release of MLK and was dead set against JFK's call to Coretta King which turned out to be an election game changer! To be fair, RFK JR. was himself was almost 7. But obviously this is quite a 180 degree spin RFK Jr. has somehow put on this story. You'd think some aides or members of his family might have fact checked him on this. Curious as to any dispute of facts.

Wrong, if you can't get your quotes down Ben, use the "copy and paste" function. "The title of the article is "RFK Jr. would be the worst possible President Kennedy." First off, I don't necessarily believe the Daily Beast is CIA because Ben Cole says so. He's also just recently refused to give evidence that Faucci is personally invested in the Wu Han lab, and conveniently quotes another of his alleged CIA sources, Business Insider, when it suits his interest. Apart from that, would you suppress their right to criticize RFK's vaccine policy simply because you don't agree with it? You made me read the article, which I suspect you haven't. The article is focused on the vaccine topic, that's not unusual. It wasn't supposed to be an article about all of RFK's stands on the issues. And that's done all the time. As I suspected, they could probably do a more effective job of attacking RFK Jr's policy, but they're the Daily Beast. Over all effect at changing existing opinions of a relatively few current Daily Beast readers? IMO, very little.

Which is probably why Ben has been reading nothing else but the Daily Beast from Thailand! I come back here and I see this thread about the Daily Beast from Ben, and I'm thinking. "Did Ben, all this time single handedly keep this lame thread alive? But No, Ben had another thread, about the Daily Beast reviewing that stupid movie about Marilyn Monroe and the Kennedys. We informed him what a lame online site the Daily Beast is, but it's too late, he's hooked! The Daily Beast is not in the list of top 50 most visited online news sites. I couldn't check further. And what's the conspiracy here? No matter what you think, you're living in a bubble if you don't think RFK Jr. isn't going to be assailed for his vaccine policy. You remember you also thought we were being manipulated against Trump. But no, the majority of us denied Trump the Presidency by 7 million votes! Now we're trying to bite our tongue about who was being manipulated.

Whoa! Back to Dallas again! and "The Trammell Crow Company was privately held until 1997 when it went public on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol TCC. In 2006, the firm was sold to CB Richard Ellis group (NYSE:CBRE) for approximately $2.2 billion. That buys a lot of National Socialist memorabilia. And Thomas entering his fourth decade now! Thomas's appointment was from George Bush SR., under some Republican political pressure to appoint a Black Conservative Justice, which became very apparent at the hearings to be scraping the bottom of the Justice barrel! **** Joe, it looks like you got your wish. heh heh Cohen looks like that Jewish comedian actor who can be pretty funny!. Is it Richard something?

Wow Matt, What a complete schmuck RFK Jr. is! He must really think he's playing both ends against the middle. He's aligned with the slimiest devils he could possibly align with. What a naive fool! He's toast!

Goldman: Apparently this committee is no longer focused on the so called dozens and dozens of fbi whistle blowers who were supposedly going to show some massive government conspiracy to attack on conservatives. 3 of them have already came in for transcribed interviews over a month ago. Where are those witnesses Mr. Chairman? Let's bring them in right here, so the American people can see for themselves what the entire basis for this subcommittee is. And from Jordan and the Republican-silence. There will be no showdown! Just like Taibbi won't release Musk's cherry picked twitter files!

I saw this Joseph, it's well worth watching. I always hate it, when people create a clip on youtube and entitle it. Such and such "shreads" such and such. But in Joseph's clip. Matt Taibbi is completely unprepared for Meidi Assan's questions, is forced to correct egregious errors, and at times looks confused. Incidentally Bill Maher is going to appear on Tucker Carlson's show. They asked Maher if they could just talk about things they agree on, and Maher refused, but they're going through with the interview anyway.

Paul: In my opinion the reason this is true is that the media and government are beholding to the producers of junk food. Without them nothing can happen. I agree in that I think the MSM should actually undertake to really inform people about issues, rather than through little sound bytes. And in this case, with more "healthy living" programs. But the way it stands now. If people had an interest in healthy living programs, they would sell, but they simply don't sell. When I see those programs, I mostly don't watch them Paul. And I'm somewhat health oriented. And obviously if you tell, for example Gil or Joe or me that you're going to take away our 'guilty pleasures". We may resist you! Most people know when they're eating food that's not good for them. Politicians, particularly in a Democracy don't gain support by telling people what they don't want to hear. (start getting in shape, and eat right! Dammit!)They gain support by telling people what they want to hear. People don't want to be told they have to make any sacrifice. And they blame a President or official who tells them they must sacrifice. For example, despite current comments about the CIA removing Jimmy Carter from office, the economic problems that removed Jimmy Carter was a runaway train of inflation that started 4 years before he even took office! The voting public is fickle. They'll get rid of Jimmy Carter for economic problems just as they got rid of George Bush Sr., who at one point got a 90% approval rating for his handling of the Persian Gulf War. Only to watch it plummet in 18 months when the U.S. went into a minor recession. (Remember Carville, it's the economy stupid!) And out of nowhere, Bill Clinton was elected. Having a basic understanding of human nature. And understanding that social engineering can only go so far does clear the picture of why we've come to where we are, quite a bit.

I agree Paul, but what are politicians going to do? That will never gain momentum politically because people are lazy and don't want to change their eating habits and develop a healthier lifestyle, and any politician who would try to do that would just lose, and unfortunately that's called Democracy. By middle age , most people know of somebody who was given a choice to either quit an unhealthy habit or die, and has consciously chosen to die. Junk food is an American exported health crisis throughout the world. Getting rid of unhealthy food would be the answer. But everyone would squawk that it's their freedom to live the lifestyle they choose. The U.S, has made great strides in eliminating cigarette use, but in Europe, they still smoke like trains! The closest thing I remember of someone banning junk food was New York Mayor Bloomberg trying to ban big size sugary drinks, and what of lasting value came of that? Probably the best example of a candidate who emphasizes health is Marianne Williamson, who makes a lot of sense, but a majority of people will never accept the message..

Anyone with any understanding of American politics know that's a pipe dream. Karl:I can imagine a Trump/Kennedy ticket, which would require a swich by Kennedy from donk to phant. ( It is impossible the other way around) arl Ho yeah, I get your priorities there Karl. "Imagine" If only RFK Jr. could have the good sense to put the better, more powerful leader above him? Right? Are you saying here that Faucci is personally invested in Wuhan Lab research? That what it sounds like Ben. What facts do you have? If you mean approved the NIH doing some funding of the Wuhan Lab, that might be more believable. About just the funding, I found this. The Trump administration kicked in 700k too. It's hard to conceive but all this is peanuts! It's just something to say they did it! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-admin-wuhan-lab-grant/ While it isn't unusual to see international cooperation in the field of virology, this claim stretches the truth. Unfortunately the idea that there are people throughout the world who are interested in alleviating human suffering and avoiding world pandemics apart from any one's nationality, but just on humanitarian grounds is just inconceivable to some conservatives that any country wouldn't use such information to wipe out the rest of the world if they had a chance. But there are such people. . Now that's interesting though debatable. Though three's no denying Wasserman Shultz antics in Florida to try to stave off Bernie's election, the truth is, Hilary did get more votes in the primaries in 2016 than Bernie. Prior to the Super Tuesday in 2020, there was no doubt Bernie was leading Biden. This was definitely due to the party heads In 2016, in their zeal to defeat Trump at any cost thought Biden was the better choice even though separate polls showed Bernie was a better candidate against Trump. There's no doubt the Democratic establishment party heads favored Biden, and offered the more centrist candidates backing in the future if they abandoned their failing campaigns. But i think they did end up making the wisest choice. And i think most independents and non MAGA Republicans agree with that. Although I later voted in the primary for Bernie. I think there is a point of voter appeal that Bernie doesn't have. Just viscerally, I think Americans prefer strong men,even if they are weak within,to an ethnic, sort of egghead, though Bernie is good at making his message simple. I'm not sure he could beat Trump. I could see where there would be disagreement about that. But I think it would be great political theater. I would think the Kennedy name alone does take votes away from Bernie. RFK Jr. seeing Biden's vulnerability to Bernie is a bit like RFK seeing LBJ lose the New Hampshire primary to Eugene Mc Carthy. He also has a head start if Biden doesn't run. Nobody really sees Kamala Harris as the next President.

First I do believe, like Michael and Chris, that RFK's speech problem is a big impediment to his getting elected. It will also be difficult for him to win the Presidency just as it was for Ted Kennedy unseating Jimmy Carter, unless Biden decides not to run. I do applaud that he, IMO has isolated the single greatest problem in the U.S., and that is the preeminence of the Corporate State. Only 2 other people who have run for office have made that distinction. Ralph Nader in 2000, and Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and came to regret it as a number of people who voted like I did made it easier for Gore to have the election stolen from him. I'll only say that as a person who doesn't believe in the electoral college and someone who actually believes Gore probably won Florida. I think there were 2 basic reasons I was mistaken voting for Nader. I think it's important to say that no American politician, Republican or Democrat would have a ghost of chance of being reelected if he passively let 911 pass. The chief difference between Gore and Bush's reaction to 911 would be that Gore wouldn't have launched a major domestic surveillance spy state as Bush did and 2) Gore would never have invaded Iraq. And certainly RFK wouldn't have. These differences are historically huge. And the differences in the 2 parties perceptions on geopolitcal strategy would not be near as clouded as it is now. Even though sometimes I think Michael offers a unique perspective,and I did like his link, which does give voice to recent weather anomalies, but says it's within historical precedents and talks of the difficulties of achieving any real consensus politically on climate change goals, between have and have not nations. I don't agree with his' putting down of Gore's predictions in "An Inconvenient Truth" as he in fact said in 2006 that if there was no serious action taken to effect climate change in 10 years, you would start seeing very visible effects, and at least from where I live in California. It was right around 2015 that things started getting pretty crazy. As I always understood it, the climate scientists were not predicting greater frequencies of hurricanes and other various extreme weather phenomena but just more extreme incidents, like in Missouri just yesterday! To me it's unquestionable everything's going out of whack. I'm completely in RFK's corner on that, as well as the points made about ensuring clean water, rethinking food supply and the preservation of species on earth etc.. IMO, We need someone who won't just put lip service to climate change, and his anti corporate stance works hand in hand with that. I don't want to misinterpret RFK's anti vax stance because I frankly don't understand it, and to me, it's not completely clear. And that's bad political baggage that he's just going to be continually having to stave off. He's villainized Faucci as evil, whose not been perfect but the worst you can say with certainty about him is that he's a government bureaucrat /turned in part politician, living in a Capitalist economic system whose had to maneuver around a President who could see nothing beyond his desire to get re elected. And despite some people's wishful thinking. There's not going to come a day when RFK Jr.is going to suddenly look brilliant on that issue. This Banon, Roger Stone connection is new to me. But both those guys are politically very smart. All of Trump's rhetoric about the issues of protecting the border and Globalism, (which is the closest thing Trump has to an ideological base outside of his Culture War rhetoric) didn't come from Trump, but from Steve Banon. Steve Banon's stated aim is the dismantling of the administrative state, including the nation's safety net. He and Stone are smart enough to know that RFK is diametrically opposed to that. So it's obvious they are just cynically using him trying to stir up more sh-t against the government, and allow an opening for Trump to get the plurality in 2024, because their proximity and influence to Trump was their single politically greatest life achievement, and would like to see it continue. I think they're grasping at straws, as I don't think there is any more real evidence that RFK will start a third party movement than Ted Kennedy would have in 1980. I think the Kennedy's are smart enough to know they need the Dem Party apparatus. IMO, that possibility of unseating Biden, could have been much more interesting if he didn't have the vaccine baggage. I was kind of hoping for the next generation of Kennedy's because I wanted to think my generation was someday going to pass the baton, and that this story could be better told now by a younger person. But we will see if some of that Kennedy mystique is left. Either RFK Jr. or someone similar, could have the ideas whose time has come.

You and I came to the same conclusion on this Tom. Specifically, as far as the charge that Ruth neglected to inform Lee of a better paying job. As a friend, and not even the wife of Lee. Why would she even be told the wage? There is no proof she was.. And for example, Why couldn't she just have been tired of trying to find Lee a job, and then be relieved she no longer has to find this guy a job, and lose interest, and not pursue it? Then months later, after hours of intense questioning , she gets defensive and fumbles when she finds that her neglect was being turned into a motive when confronted? Tom, thanks for that interview snippet,. with Rankin and Marina. Lee and Marina agree that Ruth was a "stupid woman" (Lee) and "not very smart." (Marina) ha ha!

Re: the thread. "Nothing to see here folks, move on!" heh heh heh The Dallas police should have insisted they stay, but they are the Dallas Police! Nobody can conceive of this now, but it was actually prevalent behavior that people who felt they had nothing to hide, actually trusted the police! And the biggest embarrassment to a middle class American back then would have been to be seen by his neighbors stopped in their car by the police! They weren't considered any flight risk. And as far as the Paine's international connections filtering down to the DPD when they knocked on the door, I think that's quite a stretch! Though I'm sure some disagree.