Joe Bauer

Bravo Robert. A very inspiring piece.

Doug, the secret train travel story of the Bush's is intriguingly interesting. The Bush's seemed to have many more secret aspects to their lives than most would suspect.

Doug, it is so reasonable to believe that secret flights were implemented all the time ( and still are ) for covert activities by who-knows-who in our highest levels of political, military, corporate and organized crime power, to give cover for one's presence somewhere else besides their official record stated presence elsewhere. Hoover could have easily had an unrecorded flight from DC to Dallas that evening and one back to DC...all within the time frame it would take to do so. I am sure that hit men employed by nefarious groups and individuals use this tactic all the time. Do the deed...and then fly far away within minutes. William Robert "Tosh" Plumlee did this duty many times as a pilot. David Ferry as well.

Paul I haven't. But I will.

JFK's slaughter was so extremely beneficial and necessary to so many JFK threatened power groups and individuals, his removal was inevitable. JFK haters and enemies knew that enough Americans had become so enamored with him ( and Jackie ) during his time in office that there was no way he would lose the election of 1964. That reality check obviously spurred on the most desperate JFK removal counter plan imaginable. Joseph Milteer's recorded conversation to a Miami police informant where he describes the exact JFK shooting scenario and a patsy being caught soon after 13 days before it happened just as he predicted rings too coincidental imo. Who was Joseph Milteer? He was an organizer for the racist National States Rights Party and the Constitution Party. The latter organization's membership included retired Marine General Pedro del Valle, about whom Drew Pearson wrote in 1961 that del Valle came close to "urging armed insurrection." If Milteer's predictions were indeed based on foreknowledge, then the path to Kennedy's real killers would lead to right-wing segregationists and military extremists, categories which included some very powerful people.

Have any researchers/writers besides Martin Shackleford, Penn Jones and Dave Perry ever decently investigated the Murchison party/get-together to determine whether it happened, the date of it happening and who may have attended...beyond these persons and the well known claims of Madeline Brown and May Newman? Both Brown and Newman recount the event with many specific personal details. Brown's account was found to contain several provable errors but it's reasonably debatable whether these errors specifically or in total mean the meeting never took place. May Newman's account rings true to me as I find her credible for many reasons. Her very loyal long term employment with Virginia Murchison. Her obvious non-corrupt background. The lack of any credibility and bad character claims against her by anyone who knew or worked with her at any point in her life and that someone would expect to come forward ( or be sought out ) if she were this way following her explosive story via the international exposure documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." And in my common sense - life time experience mind May Newman would have to have been a fairly well trained actress to so convincingly evoke the choked up emotions she exhibited when she told of how the "champagne and caviar flowed...for a week after " in the Murchison household after JFK's slaughter. And at the same time it seemed to her that she was the only one grieving for JFK and his family in this sick week long death celebration scene during that time. Dave Perry's critical analysis of Martin Shackleford's and Penn Jones's and Brown's and Newman's accounts of the Murchison get-together is so weak it's barely worth reading. Using the wife of Murchison driver Warren Tilley as a counter to Newman's account of Virginia Murchison chauffeur Jule Fifer ( correct spelling unknown) and his driving duties the night of 11,21,1963 was ridiculous. Citing Dallas newspaper society writer Val Imm as a discrediting source is also laughably weak. Read what Ms. Imm actually says in Perry's piece. She doesn't deny the meeting took place. She just doesn't remember it. And what idiot would invited a social scene/gossip columnist to a meeting like this? And perhaps an earlier social gathering provided a cover for what happened after this? Where the real cigar smoke filled back room good-ole-boy meeting took place? So the house in question was owned by Murchison's son John at that time and not the old man himself? Who could keep track of property transfers within family ( it was still a "Murchison" home ) especially a little person like Madeline Brown? It would make perfect sense that LBJ's powerful and egomaniacal oil baron backers ( the richest men on Earth at that time ) would personally want to see or hear from their biggest political asset at some time while he ( LBJ ) was so close in proximity to their home base location, if even for a few minutes only. These megalomania guys and their extreme right organizations must have been in an uptight angst frenzy ( RFK had General Walker thrown into a mental ward!) knowing their hated enemy JFK was actually parading right through the heart of their personal sacred ground fiefdom and to the cheers of tens of thousands sized adoring crowds. Trying to discredit Madeline Brown and May Newman and others versus those who defend and promote the other side of these 11,21,1963 Murchison household get-together claims ( super wealthy extreme right wing death celebrating JFK haters ) is really an invalid endeavor. Especially if one uses the Dave Perry report as their main justification for such.

On November 17, 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon said to the American people in a televised nationally broadcast news conference from the land of make believe - Disney World in Orlando, Florida - "I am not a crook." And "I have earned everything I have."

So much more to know versus just Robert Caro's LBJ tomes. Someday the American people should know the full reality truth about LBJ. His true main legacy was one of monumental corruption.

Agreed Robert.

Yes Jim, the Nixon and Kissinger lies were of monumental importance and consequence. Trump's lies have not resulted in huge death toll war crimes. However, Trump's lies about Russian influence and effect in our most major election process is also extremely important on so many levels. And should be addressed as seriously as Nixon's and Kissinger's.

Trump compared to JFK? Regards lying? The following editorial comment article from today's Yahoo political page is one of the most coherently perceptive and enlightening of Trump and worthy of sharing in my opinion. Not just in the comparison of Trump to JFK but for other important reasons as well. If others here feel this posting is too current day political versus JFK related, let me know and provide me the link to our political forum. However, I do feel the article and it's view of Trump's moral character and mental and emotional make up ( including his constant brazen lying and dismissing of the consequences ) are some reasons why we will never see Trump do anything substantial regards helping to open up any truly important JFK assassination files. When Trump shouted what we see on the news "is crap" yesterday in his nationally shown Vet speech, I couldn't help but compare Trump's raw street/bar/locker room talk presidential governing and public speaking style to JFK's vastly more eloquent, mature and office respecting one. GW Bush was no JFK at the public podium, but even he gave some consideration in his public speaking to the office of the presidency. He didn't devolve into beer bragging, fart joke telling good-ole-boys Texas barbeque talk which I think most of us knew he felt more comfortable with in his private life. Trump however, doesn't seem to know or care that his public speaking style and content as president is of the lowest brow and that as president he should set a higher example of responsible discourse leadership versus the opposite. I do wonder though, would JFK have lied if publicly confronted with charges of infidelity and affairs, several while in office? The following article was written by Matt Bai. Plenty of presidents lie. Only Trump doesn't care if you catch him. Matt Bai National Political Columnist , Yahoo News•July 26, 2018 Yahoo News photo illustration; photos: AP, Getty More Some former White House aides write memoirs so they can set the record straight for historians. Others do it to rehabilitate their reputations, or just to make some money while they figure out what’s next. In the case of Sean Spicer, the once respectable Republican aide who became President Trump’s first press secretary, the main purpose for writing a book seems to have been to re-ingratiate himself to a boss who probably forgot about him 10 minutes after he left, mainly by repeating a bunch of things that were demonstrably untrue when he said them and haven’t gotten any truer since. If you really need to know more, here’s a pretty brilliant review of “The Briefing,” which just arrived in stores, by ABC’s Jonathan Karl. (It appeared in the Wall Street Journal, so I’m afraid you’ll need a password to read it, and I’m not giving you mine.) Personally, I don’t intend to read Spicer’s memoir, for the same reason I don’t call 1-800 numbers for personal injury lawyers who advertise on billboards along the interstate. Life is full of deceit — there’s no reason to go seeking it out. Also, the world is full of other books, some of which I haven’t gotten around to yet, that don’t contain lines like this description of the president: “He is a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow.” I swear I’m not making that up. As it happens, one such book offers a very different window into the contentious relationship between presidents and the press corps. It’s a recent memoir, simply titled “Reporter,” by Seymour Hersh, one of the most important investigative reporters of the last half century. Most of what’s in it is verifiably true. “Reporter” does suffer from an inexplicable omission of unicorn tandems. What it has, though, is a fascinating chapter, among others, in which Hersh recounts his work from the early 1970s, when, as a young reporter at the New York Times, he did a series of stories exposing the mendacity of the Nixon administration. Suffice it to say that Nixon and his secretary of state, the beguiling Henry Kissinger, lied a lot, and they lied about stuff that really mattered. They lied about bombing Cambodia. They lied about the existence of a secret White House team known as the Plumbers. They lied about covert efforts to topple the Chilean president, Salvador Allende. Hersh’s account is made more chilling by some of the notes and transcripts that were later released. At one point, hours after Kissinger flatly told Hersh he didn’t know anything about a secret scheme to cover up the location of bombing runs in Southeast Asia, Kissinger spoke on the phone with his deputy, Gen. Al Haig, who suggested they shouldn’t be talking to Hersh at all. “Well, you can take that attitude but I can’t,” Kissinger said. “I knew about the operation.” What I found fascinating about Hersh’s revisiting of all this wasn’t that Nixon and Kissinger knowingly misled the press and the public (this has been long established, after all), but rather why. They lied because they were afraid. They lied because they strongly suspected that if reporters like Hersh found out the facts and wrote about them, the public would recoil in disgust, and the administration’s policies, exposed to scrutiny, would have to change. They feared the consequences of truth. And, as it turned out, they had good reason, since Nixon ultimately had to flee office to avoid impeachment, the lies having eaten away the foundations of his crumbling presidency. (Kissinger, on the other hand, was allowed to graduate to the role of American statesman, in no small part because of relationships he had cultivated in the media.) If you think about it, this has been more or less the norm in American politics, to the extent that it’s normal for the government to lie at all. When presidents aren’t truthful, it’s because the repercussions of telling the truth are thought to be unbearable. Which brings me back to Spicer’s memoir and the Trump administration, which from day one has pursued an entirely different kind of systematic deception than Nixon or anyone else who came before. Trump and his minions don’t fear the consequences of truth, because they don’t believe those consequences really apply to them. The president doesn’t habitually lie — about Russian election meddling, or about his paying off a concubine, or about what he said on camera or into a tape recorder just yesterday or the day before that — because he thinks the truth will be politically calamitous. No, he lies because he’s pretty sure he can make you believe whatever he wants you to believe (it worked for a self-promoting developer in the New York tabloid world), and there doesn’t seem to be a penalty for trying. To put it starkly, Trump is the first president in my lifetime to essentially say to the press that covers him: “Go ahead, jump up and down, prove all the lies you want with your fact checks and your transcripts and your phony outrage. Nobody believes you anyway.” In fact, if there was any doubt that this was Trump’s basic philosophy, he put it to rest just a few days ago, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “Don’t believe the crap you hear from these people — the fake news,” Trump said. “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” Now, as I’ve written before, my industry bears a lot of the blame for making this possible. My colleagues in the media often seem to blame Trump for creating and stoking the public’s abject distrust, when in fact it was our own vanity and triviality — the glib cable punditry, the obsession with rumors and ratings — that created him. When you look through a telescope and see the light from a supernova, you’re not actually seeing a star erupt in real time — you’re seeing something that happened eons ago, whose effects are only now reaching us. And, similarly, when you watch Trump undermine the idea of provable truth, what you’re really watching is the reverberation of something that began 30-plus years ago, a slow burning out of public faith that the president merely exists to exploit. But if there’s a burden on journalists to rebuild that trust (and there is), then there’s a burden on you, too, to be a shrewder consumer. Because make no mistake: Trump and his acolytes disdain you, in a way Nixon on his worst day did not. They don’t think you’re smart enough to recognize truth or care about it. They don’t fear your judgment, because they don’t think you have any. So by all means, be skeptical of the media — we’ve earned it. But don’t be blind. Don’t be taken in by a demagogue, or the sycophants around him, who would have you believe that everything you read that doesn’t conform to your worldview must be nothing but garbage, because he says it is. That’s just a unicorn riding a unicorn, spearing you in the back.

Rick, notice the horrifically shell shocked and grief stricken look on Jackie's face in that photo at the same time Albert Thomas is grinning and winking at LBJ? Jackie's eyes are fixed in absolute horror. To this day these pictures of Jackie Kennedy in that scene and in indescribable shock and grief just haunt me. I don't know how she got through that cramped, body heat cabin ceremony without breaking into wails or even fainting. Again, does anyone here know whether Jackie's presence in the LBJ swearing in ceremony was legally required? If not, leave this horrifically shell shocked, grief stricken woman in a safe and comforting space and provide her with immediate empathetic care, support and assistance until she gets back to Washington, DC where she can get some real help and support. Did anyone ever ask Albert Thomas why he decided to present to LBJ that celebratory grin and wink that was as out of place as laughing at a hanging?

Just listened to the conference call tape again. LBJ mentions Kay Graham and others as wicked and mean and wanting to bring LBJ and his people down. LBJ then speculates that perhaps this is because of Bobby ( Baker? ) getting a girl for "Phil." One must assume LBJ is talking about Phil Graham. The other hooker statement by one of LBJ's fixer team is they would have to get a hooker for "these people" in the end.

Robert, yes. I too am surprised this tape survived. It's so starkly revealing of the truth of LBJ's deeper corruption. Your connecting these conference call participants to many other intriguing high level LBJ shenanigans is also very revealing and appreciated. And the Thornberry/Nagel connection is ominous, isn't it? Valenti. What can one say about this LBJ sychophantic weasel besides Valenti providing cover for LBJ's child with his wife? And I would love to have Bill Moyers pinned down in a public forum to listen to this tape and answer questions and explain what it and his role in this was all about. It is powerful to me to hear LBJ himself actually state that he believed he could be "going to jail" about this issue. This tape and LBJ's statements on it reveal how big of a deal this issue was with LBJ. Much bigger than has been generally suggested and written about. And I agree the hushed tone concern here cannot just be about the payment of a stereo. I have also listened to the tape more than once. 3 times in fact. Many times, the conversation is so hushed, I can't clearly make out what is being said. Regards the "hooker" comment, I think now that the person suggesting this is talking about just one of the journalists, not all three. And I thought I heard LBJ talking about an issue with Bobby Baker where he says something ( again, too hushed to be quoted ) about Bobby ( Baker? ) doing something with a girl? Perhaps providing someone with a call girl? And I am not sure who...may have been Valenti?...saying that the American people won't be concerned about something a day later after it comes out? That they just won't care? And how you can placate the coloreds simply by giving them something on Civil Rights...and placating the American businessmen by passing some new tax bill benefiting them. Sounds just like Trump's new tax break for the wealthy bill. There is much to contemplate about LBJ and his cronies in this call. An aside: I was just again looking at the famous photo of LBJ being sworn in on Air Force 1 on 11,22,1963. This photo always disturbs me. Even angers me. In this you see that LBJ weasel Jack Valenti squatting in the left hand corner of the picture. You also see Albert Thomas ( who is pictured in another photo of this event ) giving LBJ that perversely incongruous, sick grinning congratulatory wink after LBJ's swearing in. Like you would give a hometown football player hero who just scored a game winning touchdown. This upbeat, celebratory Thomas action is so out of place in this incredibly somber and sad scene it chills you. And in this photo you also see an absolutely horrifically traumatized Jackie. That is the most outrageously sickening and disgusting element of this Air Force 1 swearing in picture. To drag someone in Jackie's unbelievably traumatized state just an hour or two after she witnessed her husband's head explode inches from her face into that crowded cabin...for what...a politically expedient for LBJ photo-op? Was it truly "legally" required to have Jackie next to LBJ for this ceremony? Dear God! What a monstrous act! Who actually thought up this sick torturous Jackie Kennedy next to LBJ scene and made it happen? And why? Jackie should have been sequestered and incredibly protected and comforted in a quiet room far apart from this political swearing in ceremony with some comforting and empathetic companionship, probably female and maybe a priest and even a doctor or nurse at her calling if needed. Jackie was so traumatized by her husband's barbaric close up murder that in the days and weeks and maybe even months after her nightmare on Elm Street, she even contemplated suicide and had to have much counseling and be prescribed sedatives to just get through that time! But right there on Air Force 1, within just two hours of one of the most brutal public executions in our political history, there is blood covered and shell shocked Jackie being forced to participate in one last photo op for you know who's benefit...certainly not hers. I'm sorry, but I can't look at a picture of LBJ ( the Air Force One swearing in photo most particularly ) and his cronies as well...and not feel ill in my stomach. The guy and his mentors and sychophants just exude ruthless ambition, corruption and callousness.

What a great and impartial 3 man team we were coincidentally blessed with to immediately take over after JFK was murdered and to create and control the assassination investigative effort. LBJ, J.Edgar Hoover and Allen Welsh Dulles. All 3 extreme JFK/RFK haters and all 3 on the career and power ending ropes if JFK remained in office.

Doug, I just edited my post to use the "exact" words LBJ stated in his "going to jail" comment on the tape. Even one word lazily misquoted can weaken the credibility of one's point of view of these comments, so I felt it was necessary to get it exactly right. Sorry for the delayed change, especially since you say you posted my original post on another site. Ron, I do not suggest that Malcolm Wallace was directly involved in the JFK assassination. I only mentioned him and his tossed out guilty of murder jury finding and conviction sentence that LBJ influenced as another incredible example of LBJ's outrageous corruption. I absolutely do believe however, that Wallace murdered Henry Marshall. On orders from LBJ and his fellow power cronies. LBJ didn't have to be directly involved with the actual JFK assassination to be complicit in the crime. All he would have to do is know of and okay it and help with the cover-up by creating a so-called truth finding commission stacked with JFK adversaries and completely dependent on the JFK/RFK hating Hoover FBI for it's investigative information. The tape of LBJ telling Hoover they ( LBJ and Hoover ) were "like brothers" also tells you how close these two JFK/RFK adversaries were in so many ways. My main take and point after listening to this LBJ/fixer boys audio tape is how clearly it reveals that LBJ's "going to jail" concerns about his Bobby Baker/Don Reynolds dealings and probably Billy Sol Estes and who knows what other corrupt schemes, were as real and strong as many "LBJ knew" proponents have suggested. And with JFK and RFK remaining in control and LBJ probably knowing that JFK and RFK might not have stopped federal investigations into LBJ's corrupt doings, it's deductively reasonable to look at LBJ's career ruination and jail time fears as being serious enough to qualify as a legitimately considered motive in his possible involvement more so than has been generally acknowledged. IMO.

Doug, thank you. I appreciate this and also your seeing what I see in listening to the audio tape. Only 400+ people have linked to this conversation.

Bravo!

Carter was asked a question about the CIA, and when Carter said the word CIA, the microphone went dead, and there was an embarrassing ten minutes of silence... just video of the candidates behind the lecterns shuffling their feet and looking silly? This was widely interpreted as the CIA showing Carter they were not to be messed with. I googled the event, but could find nothing. Jack Interesting. During Trump's televised comments to the media yesterday he was in the middle of mentioning something about his intelligence agencies when all the lights went out in the room. They came back on after several seconds. Trump was rattled enough though that he made a slightly nervous joke and asked if everyone was all right or okay?

The same kind of diversion Sirhan Sirhan provided for the real close up rear head shot shooter of RFK?

Yes, an amazing story.

The Jack Ruby - Parkland Hospital lie was so obvious that as mentioned, even Burt. W. Griffin ( the Warren Commission attorney who developed these conclusions for the Warren Report ) changed his mind about it later. And like you say Robert "if this were THE ONLY Warren Commission mistake it would be enough to tarnish them." When you read Ruby's WC testimony you notice that his questioners mostly asked him general questions and let him find his own narrative and ramble on for hours. Ruby for sure used this rambling on tactic to keep distracting from so many other more important areas of his full life actions, connections and history, which if seriously gotten into, would have revealed that Jack Ruby and his career doings were much more intriguingly involved than simple strip joint owner. There were SO MANY other areas of questioning the Warren Commission could have pursued with Ruby that would have revealed so many other nefarious higher crime doings on his part. Drug running? Gun running? Gambling and prostitution set up man? FBI informant? Bag man for who knows what groups and agencies? Look up Mark Lane's interview with Nancy Hamilton ( on You Tube ) and listen to her first hand account of seeing Jack Ruby ( her former employer ) appear at a gun running meeting she was attending and how Ruby was clearly the money man. How about asking Ruby about his pimping hookers for possibly some of the most powerful men in Texas politics and police agencies and members of the Mafia? Ask him who some of these johns were. Everyone knows the strip joint business back then was often a multi-state organized and connected front for prostitution and there were establish networks over many states where their hookers would be shuffled back and forth for this purpose. From Florida to Texas in this case? And as one might expect, this same established network was used to ship drugs. Rose Cherami ( another former employee of Jack Ruby ) confirmed this scenario with Louisiana state police officer Francis Fruge'. Ruby's trips to New Orleans never included even one personal meet up with JFK/RFK death wish level hating Godfather Carlos Marcello or someone close to him? Yet, Ruby is sent to Cuba and gets a personal sit down to see and talk to Santos Trafficante while Trafficante is in a Castro jail? Little ole Jack Ruby? Personally meeting one of most powerful Mafia heads in the country? If the WC had truly wanted to know the full picture of Jack Ruby they could have easily gotten this. Instead they kept their questions centered mostly around Ruby's specific movements and actions around 11,22,1963 thru 11,24,1963. Pinning Ruby down as far as his other nefarious areas of activity, especially the gun running, drug running and possible FBI informant role and who he was working for in these duties, would have revealed so much more valuable Ruby background information. When asked why he didn't have any inclination to see his "beloved" JFK and classy Jackie in the flesh in their motorcade just two blocs away the day of 11,22,1963 and instead holing up in a newspaper office waiting area the whole time...Ruby actually threw out this ridiculous explanation..."I don't like crowds." ! Yet less than one hour after the motorcade, crowd averse Ruby ( who attended state fairs, major boxing events, skating rinks and YMCA pools, etc ) thrusts himself into the mad house crush crowd at Parkland and then just hours later he again thrusts himself into one of the most crazy crowded situations ever seen inside the Dallas Police Department building? Ruby lied and diverted so much. His WC testimony was a long, drawn out, crazy rambling narrative that must have had everyone present numb with boredom and fighting yawns and falling asleep. Overall, the full Ruby story truth was kept under purposely intended wraps. And since the FBI was controlling the WC investigation, we know who was keeping it this way.

Carter also initiated a serious attempt to deal with and curb corruption in our major city police forces and judicial systems and even Las Vegas. The Mafia had corrupted so many major city police forces and judicial systems over decades and it wasn't until Carter that a substantially funded effort was made on a federal level to deal with this problem in a major way. At one time it was estimated that police forces such as New York City and others had inner corruption rates of 30% and higher! Carter will never receive the credit he is due. Not even in our main stream media history books. But, the more you look at what he was trying to do, the specifics, you will see someone who the nefarious corrupt forces in this country hated. Reagan's handlers made that deal with the Iranians, they made a deal with the Vatican, and who knows how many other back room deals to gain an edge in the popular vote and dump a president who was really getting into areas of corruption and long held power that were not supposed to be dealt with. Like JFK, Carter had very powerful enemies who saw Carter's policies as a major threat to their status. They didn't have to kill Carter though. They just had to manipulate an election enough to get rid of him.

I recently came across this audio tape on You Tube of LBJ ( as President and before the 1964 election ) having a conference call with his inner circle boys about how to deal with deciding to issue any statements regarding LBJ's legal problems with Bobby Baker and Don Reynolds involving shady payments to LBJ's media company and I assume other related illegality shenanigans. I found this conference call taping incredibly revealing and more confirming of not just the dark corrupt side of LBJ himself but of the real backroom type extent his fixer boys were helping LBJ keep quiet or even cover up these probable crimes in cahoots with Baker and others. Walter Jenkins, Bill Moyers, Abe Fortas, George Reedy etc. This shady and worried concerned conference call reminded me of Nixon's similar desperate Watergate cover up meet ups with Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, etc. In this audio there are some incredible comments. One is of LBJ ( starting at the 9 minute mark) stating that if he takes the advise of "not" making any public statements he'll be in "a hell of a shape" but if I do follow your advice "I'm going to jail." ! So many other interesting comments also such as the suggested use of nationally known ( friendly? ) journalists Drew Pearson, Bill White and Rowland Evans to write favorable pieces to help LBJ's cause. After this subject was discussed someone in the group ( Fortas? Jenkins? ) warned that if they used these journalists they would have to include "a hooker" in the end which I interpreted as providing these journalists with a hooker as a "thank you?" The entire call, especially LBJ's conversation, is carried on with the most halting and hushed toned concern. The audio just confirms again in my mind that the LBJ / Bobby Baker problem and LBJ's concern about it was as serious as some suggest it was and maybe even a possible motive in any involvement LBJ may have had in the "Big Event" as E. Howard Hunt stated in his close to death confessional. And that the propositions of LBJ's corruption being so much more extensive than we can allow ourselves to face is much more the reality versus anything downplaying of this view. This revealing shady hush toned backroom fixer call between LBJ and his inner circle of protective loyalist cronies makes it much easier to imagine LBJ having similar conspiratorial ones his whole career. From fixed elections, to Malcolm Wallace's fixed conviction to who knows what other nefarious doings. 35:51 LBJ Talks About Bobby Baker & Billie Sol Estes (w/Jenkins, Moyers, Valenti, Reedy, Fortas & RFK) JFK Tapes • 432 views2 months ago A pair of tapes where President Johnson talks about the Bobby Baker & Billie Sol Estes controversies. On the first tape, Walter ...

Why would the WC state in their final report this finding which any rational person who has read, seen or heard anything about Jack Ruby/ Seth Kantor would instantly see as so illogical it's...well, nuts. What were they afraid of in providing cover for this specific Ruby lie?