Benjamin Cole
-
Posts
7,288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Benjamin Cole
-
-
The beat goes on...the CIA has its fingers into Business Insider, now owned by Axel Springer, a German outfit.
About Axel Springer:
"Editorial bias and alleged ties to US intelligence agencies
According to German scholar Gudrun Kruip of the Stiftung Bundespräsident-Theodor-Heuss-Haus, Axel Springer SE and its subsidiaries spread a strongly pro-American view in which criticism of US foreign policy is largely absent.[37] In an interview with The Nation, two former CIA officers alleged that Axel Springer received 7 million USD from the CIA to support American geopolitical interests with his publishing house.[38] Springer reportedly agreed and began guiding the editorial bias towards supporting US foreign policy.[38] Although no conclusive evidence has come to light, Kruip considers the CIA officers' allegations credible since Springer, according to his own autobiography, had no money to actually fund the publishing house when it was founded, and it was thus unlikely that he could finance its rapid ascent without "money from the outside"."---Wikipedia
OK, so Business Insider runs this headline today:
"Capitol Police officer says it's a 'disgrace' that Pence is dismissing January 6: 'We did everything possible to prevent him from being hanged and killed in front of his daughter and his wife'"
The above hyperbolic headline is recycled from a recent interview the officer gave to the federal government-funded NPR.
Evidently, no one at NPR or Business Insider asked the Capitol Police officer "Where were the 3,500 officers of the Capitol Police department on Jan. 6?" or "The Capitol Police commander in charge of the civil disturbance unit was at home making meatloaf on the afternoon of Jan 6. That's as reported the in the WaPo. Why was the commander at cooking at home?"
And, of course, asking if there were federal instigators in the crowd is verboten.
Anyway, the take-away is Business Insider joins Daily Kos, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, WaPo, NYT, The Atlantic and others as suspect due to CIA ties.
The oddity about this...this is looking like a clean sweep of what used to be left-wing or liberal media.
Jeff Bezos is an investor in Business Insider, and, of course, also owns the WaPo and is now getting CIA contracts....
Reader beware.
-
10 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
This is an excellent point, and the same point I made in an earlier thread about the ludicrous "Harvey & Lee" theory. It makes the serious research community look foolish to be advocating for a decades-long conspiracy involving doppelgangers and requiring seemingly every piece of evidence to be faked or altered.
I largely agree. That some documents are likely ersatz is a very interesting discovery.
Decades-old school records may fake, or simply bungled. I don't know if things have changed, but in the Pasadena City schools I attended a few decades back, schools were partially reimbursed on the head counts of students in attendance. Ergo, an incentive to boost school student head counts, and keep on the log students that have transferred out of town.
LHO military records being out of order may also reflect simple bungling, or an attempt to cover LHO's tracks---but only one LHO.
Why not assume LHO was an intel asset, and records were being mashed around to cover his days on assignment, or in language school, or something else to that effect?
-
8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
This article by David Reitzes sure seems devastating on the credibility of the Nagell story. The claims are so wild and unverified, so many impossibilities and contradictions indicating he was just making the stuff up. Rabbit hole city, my take on it. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/nagell3.htm.
Verily, Reitzes story that is pretty tough on Nagell, but fair.
My concern about Nagell is that by citing Nagell's claims as evidence of the JFKA, the research community can open itself up to charges of biased and sloppy research.
There are a lot of hard facts out there, in the Z film, the numerous witnesses who smelled gunsmoke in Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the ersatz CE 399, and LHO's curious personal history.
The mysterious murder of LHO, and the Warren Commission's record and decision to prosecute, and not investigate LHO.
There is the feeble HSCA concluding that JFK had likely been assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
The JFKA research community does not need the Nagell story. Parts of the guy's story could even be true, but which parts? Giving Nagell every benefit of the doubt, he was the target of a misinformation campaign, and driven crazy by circumstance, inner demons, and perhaps even CIA drugs. But that still leaves us with an uncertain story.
-
6 hours ago, Tony Rose said:
Why are you dubious about Nagell? I've never seen any documentation that contradicts anything he has said. Aren't the contents of his automobile trunk upon his arrest, documented?
Tony R:
Well, fair question, and I would have to go back and check everything but...
Nagell's story about working for the Russians and that he was supposed to assassinate LHO to prevent the JFKA...seems like a stretch.
On numerous occasions Nagell claims to have done something and documented that, but that the documents had been stolen by the FBI or others. Which means we, the public, have no documentation.
Nagell dilly-dallied with the author Russell for decades, and if Nagell had a solid story to tell with documents, he never delivered. He claimed there was a purple trunk in Tucson or somewhere with all the proof, but of course that trunk was missing, when looked for after Nagell's death.
Nagell's LHO ID card could have been fabricated by obtaining a copy of Chief Curry's book, and making a copy of the LHO card therein.
Another example is that Nagell claims to have sent a letter to the FBI forewarning of the pending JFKA, but he did not bother to send dupes to other multiple other locations to remain unopened but time-stamped by the Post Office, which would have corroborated the act.
My understanding is Nagell's lawyer in his possession had documents, but again the provenance is uncertain.
My take: In the end, Nagell is not necessary to an understanding of the JFKA, and he could provide LN'ers with ammo. But others have other viewpoints....
-
6 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:
Dkos - notorious for shutting down ANY conversation about JFKA and the audience is hostile to JFK in general. They take the line that he was a typical Cold Warrior in line with Ike and LBJ.
They recently had a rare post about the lack of transparency of JFK file releases. It was crap quoting Sabato and others but still at least the topic was posted. I started commenting and linking Morley’s recent MTP interview and Revisited on Showtime and the post quickly disappeared off the main page.
I also once did a fairly complete ‘diary’ of JFKA on the site and found that someone - not me - put ‘hoax’ as a key word. Only someone with admin privileges could’ve done that.
Michaleen K.--
This is why this forum is important. Not only because of the JFKA, but because people like you who read this forum are alert to national security state manipulation of M$M or even what used to be the alt-left.
BTW, I should have written "You can keep your woke-ID politics, but stay away from trade, foreign-military policy or serious reforms of the tax code."
These are spooky times.
-
6 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:
I came to this conclusion in 2008, I believe. When Dennis Kucinich was running for president and the supposedly ultra-liberal Daily Kos waged a ferocious campaign against him. It was then I learned that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas trained with the CIA when he was in the military. I believe his blog was established and promoted to try to put establishment limits on what was considered acceptable liberal politics.
The Daily Kos too?
Egads.
One could build a case that the bulk of the left-wing media apparatus has been taken over by the Deep State.
The Deep State made a deal with "liberal" media: You can keep your woke-ID politics, but stay away from foreign-military policy or serious reforms of the tax code.
Message one: The people oppressing America---your real enemies---are those guys driving pick-up trucks.
-
Egads...get a load of this:
The new editor-in-chief of Rolling Stone (that was then, this is now)
Noah Schachtmann. From Wikipedia:
In 2003, Shachtman founded Defensetech.org. The site was acquired by Military.com the following year.
Okie-Dokie!
W. ---I guess no one is even hiding it now. There has been a heavy re-composition of what used to be the "left-wing" media.
-
8 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
"Let's Go Brandon" is a slur?
-
3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:
Okay, this is officially the worst article ever written about this film.
I dunno. Lots of competition in the Daily Beast, NYT, Rolling Stone, other WaPo missives.
Strange fact: 50 years ago it was the alt-left media that tolerated unofficial JFKA narratives.
Today, the alt-right media is more receptive to unofficial JFKA narratives.
This does not mean the right-wing is correct on other issues, or that Trump is a great guy.
But the media landscape has evolved in the last 50 years.
-
3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:
Revolver "News" is an extremist right-wing propaganda site.
Their twitter feed tells you a lot about their motives: twitter.com/RevolverNews
If Ray Epps had been some kind of gov plant, he never would have been advertised by the government as "Wanted", would he?
There were thousands of Trumpers there on 1/6; one or two guys didn't just suddenly convince everyone to raid the Capitol lol.
The entire thing was being planned on thedonald.win well in advance. Look it up. You should really try to research this rather than rely on goofball stories like your posted link.
Matt A.-
A funny thing about alternative news sites.
When I was young, the alternative media was mostly weekly magazines associated with a city, such as the LA Weekly in Los Angeles. Some radio outfits, such as Pacifica on the West Coast.
The above outfits could be counted on to run far left narratives, even in the face of facts, and were widely ridiculed and reviled on the right.
Those old left-wing outfits were also the only media outlets of the time to give a fair hearing to the alt-JFKA narratives.
When I first heard of Garrison blaming the CIA for the JFKA, he sounded like the man from the moon to me (in my defense, I was barely a teenager). And sure enough, only Pacifica or the LA Weekly even gave Garrison a nod.
Decades and decades later...I think Garrison was barking up the right tree. Garrison had sound reasons for his suspicions.
On 1/6....
It may be there were no federal agitators, plants or facilitators in the 1/6 scrum. I suspect there were, and there are sound documented reasons for that suspicion. Abundant video evidence for starters.
You can bet your bottom dollar the WaPo, and the M$M, agrees with you on 1/6, and they will not expend even one reporter to try to fairly ascertain the facts. That alone should make you take an impartial, less judgmental stance.
Who were Ray Epps, or Christopher Alberts, or the three other men seen, and abundantly recorded in videos, directing the crowd on 1/6?
If you think there was an attempt at a bona fide insurrection through occupation of the Capitol, I would think you would breathing fire for these individuals to be brought to justice----indeed the WaPo should have their photos on the cover of the newspaper, demanding they be brought to justice.
But no.
The alt-media has identified key agitators in the 1/6 scrum, not just by interviews or word of mouth or garbled witness testimony, but recorded on video, and....crickets.
I personally have identified through federal documents Christoper Alberts as the lone armed protestor in the Capitol, and one who carried extra ammo and a semi-auto pistol. Yet he was released on 1/7 on his own recognizance (no bail), and prosecution seems to have ended.
The unarmed Mr. Buffalo Horns has been behind bars since shortly after 1/6, and will remain there for another few years.
Huh?
This 1/6 thing gets fishier and fishier, and I smell a rat. And if there is a rat, I do not expect the M$M to tell me.
But all set aside, and a sincere Happy Holidays for now. We can resume arguments next year. We will have all sorts of florid proclamations to make!
-
1 hour ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:
Yeah Boot was also a member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and big cheerleader of the Iraq war along with Rummy, Wolfe and the other neo-imperialists (that JFK would’ve reviled, incidentally).
From Boot and the Hornady piece, it appears the CIA’s line via its mouth organ Wapo is that no credible authority questions the official story. Except of course for many, most significantly Robert Blakey who concluded you can’t believe a word the CIA has ever told anyone about the case way back in 2003 (which also got zero MSM attention).
First they tried to ignore Revisited, now the CIA is working overtime trying to discredit it within the corridors of power. Seems a bit desperate to me. Think we got them on the ropes.
I hope you are right, and I admire your optimism.
B.B. King had a blues song lyric to the effect, "Oh, I win some battles, but I always lose the war."
That's how I feel about the globalist national-security state.
Oh, we may win with JFK:Revisited. A battle won.
But the globalist national-security state controls both parties, M$M, and has a $1.2 trillion annual budget (DoD, DHS, VA and black budget).
A company like Apple has a $3 trillion (with a "t") market cap, while BlackRock manages $10 trillion in assets, globally.
The old internationalists, like Freeport Sulphur, or Dole, were not nearly in scale, and were mostly in resources extraction. The oil majors used to be big....but now all the international players are big+.
By any fair measure, the WaPo long ago should have forthrightly called for the release of all JFK docs, and a re-examination and investigation of the JFKA. No drawing conclusions, just a serious re-do of the investigation, with lots of transparency.
The WaPo can't even do that.
Instead they run this P.U. from Max Boot.
-
Effing Max Boot. This guy has been on the Pentagon payroll, and for 20 years advised staying the course in Afghanistan.
"More (JFK) documents remain to be released, but what has come out so far has done nothing to shake the conclusion reached by all credible investigators that Oswald was the lone gunman."---Max Boot
Yes, except the ultra-cautious HSCA in 1979 concluded the JFKA had likely been a conspiracy--and that was before even more evidence emerged thanks to Stone's film.
Boot is also author of the stupendously awful “The Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in Vietnam.”
Yes, we would-a, could-a, should-a won in Vietnam. Max Boot knows. He knows about crawling around in jungles and Operation Phoenix success stories---from his armchair in the Council of Foreign Relations.
Then also,
COMMENTARY
"In Afghanistan, the world is crumbling"
By Max Boot, Washington Post
Aug 11, 2021 Updated Aug 12, 2021
Gee, the Afghan nation of 40 million did not fire one shot against the 70,000-man Taliban army. After 20 years if US tutelage and listening to Max Boot. We just needed better counter-insurgency!
If ever there was a reverse weather vane to watch, it is Max Boot. The globalist vision, financed by US taxpayers, for the benefit of multinationalist elites.
Stay in Afghanistan! Vietnam! Run South America! Change Cuba! Africa needs intervention! More fleets for the Indo-Pacific!
If the Dulles brothers have a successor....it is Max Boot.
And did Boot ever spend even a few weeks looking into JFKA evidence for himself?
But the WaPo will give him a platform.
I would welcome some trenchant questioning of JFK: Revisited. I think it would easily stand up to scrutiny, and if an issue or two emerged, so be it.
But what we get is below-the-belt hit pieces---in the WaPo.
-
2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:
I don't know whether they have anything or not. They're not likely to go to print without corroborating sources unless the source itself is beyond reproach. That's all I'm saying. They may not have squat. But their silence isn't meaningful.
The idea the feds had something to do with it is ridiculous also. It's not unusual for the FBI or other LEOs to have sources inside radical domestic groups if those groups are considered dangerous. Par for the course. The hullabaloo about it is flak thrown up to redirect the conversation, a specialty of the current republican wing nuts. Jewish Space Lasers if you will.
https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Another perspective. I would keep an open mind on this one.
-
1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:
Ben, why in the world do you think they would say if they did? Wapo has to have corroborating information and the DoJ and House Committee would be stupid to say anything publicly. Any information spilled at this point would only help possible targets to synchronize their stories. During the Mueller probe Trump, engaged in 37 different Mutual Defense Agreements with other people of interest including 6 or 7 convicted felons.
People here were trying to say that's "perfectly normal" except in that case one of the possible defendants could not be indicted AND could pardon any behavior of the others. Their attorneys coordinated as much of their stories as possible and dangled pardons when necessary. It was gross, unethical and undoubtedly illegal and felonious.
Bob N.-
If the WaPo has concrete evidence of Trumpers instigating or coordinating the scrum on 1/6, (by my lights) they should print it immediately, no holds barred.
Ideally, the WaPo (although they may have forgotten) is not an investigative body aligned with the state or a political party. It is supposed to be a newspaper.
That said, the WaPo operates a newspaper under the First Amendment, without any obligations to the state or the public, or to truth or balanced coverage.
Under the First Amendment the WaPo can print what it wants, excepting libel, or a few other very extreme transgressions (clear and immediate danger to national security, or clearly and actively promoting violence of some sort).
Perhaps you are right, and the WaPo is suppressing evidence. Well, that has happened before.
-
8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Here's today's NYT letter, Ron.
Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection?
www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html
by Laurence Tribe, Donald Ayer, and Dennis Aftergut
December 23, 2021
In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor. But his place in history will be assessed against the challenges that confronted him. And the overriding test that he and the rest of the government face is the threat to our democracy from people bent on destroying it.
Mr. Garland’s success depends on ensuring that the rule of law endures. That means dissuading future coup plotters by holding the leaders of the insurrection fully accountable for their attempt to overthrow the government. But he cannot do so without a robust criminal investigation of those at the top, from the people who planned, assisted or funded the attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote to those who organized or encouraged the mob attack on the Capitol. To begin with, he might focus on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and even Donald Trump — all of whom were involved, in one way or another, in the events leading up to the attack.
Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the attack.
While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake: As Joanne Freeman, a Yale historian, wrote this month about the insurrection, “Accountability — the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed — is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.”
The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or “giving aid or comfort” to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The code also makes it a crime to corruptly impede any official proceeding or deprive citizens of their constitutional right to vote.
Based purely on what we know today from news reports and the steady stream of revelations coming from the House select committee investigating the attack, the attorney general has a powerful justification for a robust and forceful investigation into the former president and his inner circle. As White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows was intimately involved in the effort to overturn the election. He traveled to Georgia last December, where he apparently laid the groundwork for the phone call in which the president pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes.” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio reportedly promoted a scheme to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject duly certified Joe Biden electors. And from their war room at the Willard Hotel, several members of the president’s inner circle hatched the legal strategy to overturn the results of the election.
The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation.
And yet there are no signs, at least in media reports, that the attorney general is building a case against these individuals — no interviews with top administration officials, no reports of attempts to persuade the foot soldiers to turn on the people who incited them to violence. By this point in the Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller had indicted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and secured the cooperation of George Papadopoulos after charging him with lying to the F.B.I. The media was reporting that the special counsel’s team had conducted or scheduled interviews with Mr. Trump’s aides Stephen Miller and Mr. Bannon, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether Mr. Garland’s Department of Justice is investigating the leaders of the attack behind closed doors. Justice Department policy does not permit announcing investigations, absent exceptional circumstances. Mr. Garland, unlike his predecessor, plays by the book, keeping quiet about investigations until charges are filed. But the first of the rioters to plead guilty began cooperating with the Justice Department back in April. If prosecutors have been using their cooperation to investigate the top officials and operatives responsible for the siege of the Capitol and our democracy, there would likely be significant confirmation in the media by now.
It is possible that the department is deferring the decision about starting a full-blown investigative effort pending further work by the House select committee. It is even conceivable that the department is waiting for the committee’s final report so that federal prosecutors can review the documents, interviews and recommendations amassed by House investigators and can consider any potential referrals for criminal prosecution.
But such an approach would come at a very high cost. In the prosecution business, interviews need to happen as soon as possible after the events in question, to prevent both forgetfulness and witness coordination to conceal the truth. A comprehensive Department of Justice probe of the leadership is now more urgently needed than ever.
It is also imperative that Mr. Trump be included on the list of those being investigated. The media has widely reported his role in many of the relevant events, and there is no persuasive reason to exclude him.
First, he has no claim to constitutional immunity from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has recognized such immunity only for sitting presidents because a criminal trial would prevent them from discharging the duties of their office. Mr. Trump no longer has those duties to discharge.
Nor is exclusion of the former president remotely justified by the precedent President Gerald Ford set in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the country “heal” from Watergate. Even our proud tradition of not mimicking banana republics by allowing political winners to retaliate against losers must give way in the wake of violence perpetrated to thwart the peaceful transition of power. Refusing to at least investigate those who plot to end democracy — and who would remain engaged in efforts to do so — would be beyond foolhardy.
Furthermore, the pending state and local investigations in New York and Atlanta will never be able to provide the kind of accountability the nation clearly needs. The New York case, which revolves around tax fraud, has nothing to do with the attack on our government. The Atlanta district attorney appears to be probing Mr. Trump’s now infamous call to Mr. Raffensperger. But that is just one chapter of the wrongdoing that led up to the attack on the Capitol.
Significantly, even if the Atlanta district attorney is able to convict Mr. Meadows and Mr. Trump for interfering in Georgia’s election, they could still run for office again. Only convicting them for participating in an insurrection would permanently disqualify them from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict.
To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue loses.
Throughout his public life, Mr. Garland has been a highly principled public servant focused on doing the right thing. But only by holding the leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection — all of them — to account can he secure the future and teach the next generation that no one is above the law. If he has not done so already, we implore the attorney general to step up to that task.
"Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this (Biden) administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the (1/6) attack.
While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake"---NYT op-edThis is a curious admission. If there has been no investigation even of Trump Administration officials, then where is the evidence that high-level Trumpers were involved in the 1/6 scrum? It is an assumption.
And why not call for an investigation into possible federal intel assets within the scrum? And why did the Capitol Police not show up in force, and then stand down?
"The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation." NYT op-ed
This rests on the premise that Trump could "call off the armed mob." (Also, only one member of the scrum carried a firearm, and that man was possibly a federal asset, having been released on his own recognizance on 1/7, and never prosecuted.)
If there were no connections between the scrum participants and Trump, he had no ability to "call off the armed mob."
In his speech on 1/6, Trump advised people to demonstrate peaceably. Evidently, the scrum started when Trump was still blabbering away on the mall.
-
"More than 75 journalists in the (Washington) Post newsroom contributed to The Attack (the three-part series on the Capitol scrum), including more than 25 reporters. The findings are based on interviews with more than 230 people and thousands of pages of court documents and internal law enforcement reports, along with hundreds of videos, photographs and audio recordings."-WaPo.
I do not know what the difference is between a "journalist" and a "reporter," but let that go. I guess the WaPo had two editors and opinion-writers involved for every reporter.
So the WaPo devoted a small army of investigators to the The Attack. I think it is fair to say the WaPo loathes, detests and reviles Don Trump, and that is their right. As a print publication, they are under no obligation to be fair, balanced, or even to tell the truth, as long as they do not libel anyone.
In this large amount of investigation, did the WaPo unearth any communications between Trump Administration officials and the rioters at the Capitol on 1/6?
Any directives from Trumpers to enter the Capitol?
The federal government, which has subpoena powers, and the ability to read all texts, emails and to replay and listen to all cellphones calls, has produced no evidence.
The record is this: As of now, there is no evidence the Trump Administration officials played a role in the Jan. 6 scrum.
Some are conflating harebrained plans presented to the Trump Administration to have VP Pence somehow stall the vote, but using powers granted to him under the Constitution, with the 1/6 scrum.
Evidently, Pence either ignored or was never showed such plans.
-
19 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Scrum dumb. Tell me who called Lee Harvey Oswald a Useful Idiot. Meatloaf? Don't let your . . . meatloaf indeed.
Ron B.-
Touche!
We may disagree on some perceptions, but your sense of humor tops mine!
-
8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
In today's NYT, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe is telling his former pupil, AG Merrick Garland, that Trump must be prosecuted for inciting the January 6th attack on Congress.
Seems like a no brainer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html
Prosecuted, possibly, perhaps a bit of a fishing expedition. But convicted?
Wouldn't you like some evidence the 600-700 odd people arrested on Jan. 6 had some connections to Trump Administration people?
Cell-phone calls, texts, e-mails, hand-written letters delivered by courier, anything? So far, not a single shred of evidence has emerged. Evidently, the federal government has been able to open even encrypted texts.
Should there also be a fair and determined investigation to find out if federal assets instigated the scrum at the Capitol? The use of federal provocateurs and agitators is not unknown.
And I still would like to know where were the 3,500 officers of the Capitol Police Department. The Capitol officer in charge of civil disturbances response was home making meat loaf when troubles broke out (WaPo), on the afternoon of Jan. 6. How is that possible?
This sure looks like a manufactured event.
The scrum participants as useful idiots?
-
34 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Well, it was Treason. A hangable offense.
Ron B-
Hopefully before The Ox-Bow Incident, you will at least look at this:
-
-
51 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Serious question for the forum. Is Donald Trump also looking at 20 years for conspiring to obstruct an official Congressional proceeding on January 6th?
Proud Boys member pleads guilty to conspiring to obstruct Congress on January 6th
December 22, 2021
W.--For reasons good and bad, hard to say. Nixon never did a day. Bush jr. never did a day for serious civil and war crimes, and is now lionized in the M$M.
There is a reluctance is seriously prosecute a President, something about the gravity of office and he "need to move on." To put a president behind bars is to admit the top authority figure in the US can be a criminal, and that may increase disrespect for authority in general---not a desired result.
On the other hand (and here we may disagree), there are elements within the national security state who deeply opposed Trump, as did (and does) the major rival political party. They seek to destroy Trump and the associated populist anti-globalist movement.
I still sense the Donk-national security state alliance would be satisfied if Trump is just humiliated, found guilty in a court of law, and banned from public office.
As for the Proud Boys, they are led by the Afro-Cubano Enrique Tarrio...an erstwhile federal plant and informant. Who was let out of jail on Jan. 5.
Does that jail-release date seem odd to you?
-
10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
I'm a Buff, too, but our local college football team has been so mediocre in recent years that I've been losing interest in watching their games. Our Buffaloes seem to be an endangered species... 🤥
Go Buffs, in the JFKA community and on the plains of Colorado!
-
"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, compelling evidence has emerged suggesting that Garrison’s prosecution of Shaw was abetted and manipulated by intelligence agents in Moscow."--WaPo
The author of the "compelling evidence"in a 2003 article WaPo article, is someone named "Max Holl." This is Max Holland, a made CIA apologist and asset. The WaPo is citing Max Holland as proving compelling evidence the KGB provided a vital assist to Garrison.
Also since then, it has emerged that Shaw was in fact receiving payments of the CIA, and was a CIA asset.
The recent WaPo article deals with none of the substance of JFK: Revisited.
Sadly, we have to ask again: The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC...why do they go all-girly on anything to do with the CIA?
Less comfortably, why are the same publications defining America as harbor for armed and dangerous extremists by the millions and awash in malicious disinformation?
-
8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
A FMJ bullet impacting the top of JFK's head from behind at a very shallow angle would be likely to break up into pieces. In such case, the largest pieces would continue forward without traversing his skull. Such a strike is thereby consistent with two large fragments hitting near the top of the front windshield and an even larger fragment being slightly deflected and hitting the curb down by Tague. The trail of fragments on the X-rays is further support for this scenario, as it does not lead from front to back or back to front but is simply a splash of fragments at the top of the head, almost certainly in the scalp. A large fragment was also found behind the right eye. One of the most annoying things about this case for me personally is that CTs enamored with the head shot from the front theory refuse to acknowledge or even consider that 1) the fragment causing the damage to Tague was from the head shot, and 2) that the large fragment found at autopsy was behind the right eye. Much effort has been made, in fact, to conceal these facts from the public.
Now of course I could be wrong. But the evidence leads in one direction, an unwelcome one for most CTs and all LNs. The fatal bullet impacted at the top of the head from behind, leaving the lower head wound unaccounted for and evidence for multiple gunmen. Neither "side" wants this to be true, because it would mean they'd have to re-think a few things and accept that some of what they've been told by others is nonsense. I get this all the time. "How dare you say so-and-so is wrong! He's a doctor!' Or whatever. The fact is some of the nation's best and brightest looked at the evidence and came to conflicting conclusions. The argument from authority doesn't mean squat. I kinda wish it had, as it would have saved me thousands of hours of reading, research, and argument.
Pat S.
I actually lean into your camp, that the actual strikes on JFK (and indisputably, JBC) were from behind. My pet explanation of the Grassy Knoll smoke and noise is a diversion, although to repeat, every time I look at the awful Z Film, it sure looks like JFK took a shot from the Grassy Knoll-pergola area.
What I mean is that if you drew a straight line from the top of JFK's skull to the curb 20 feet from Tague's feet---would it not intersect with the limo windshield? It sure looks that way to me, but only by eyeballing the photos and map evidence.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/tague2.pdf
This fellow Griffith takes a stab at the question, and deserves credit for the effort...but I think still does not really answer the question.
I hate to say "computer animation," as we all know you can rig an animation to get the desired results. But an honest animation would be interesting to understand the height of JFK's head, the windshield and rollbar, and the point of the curb-strike.
JBC said bullets were entering the cab of the limo as if from "automatic" weapons fire. I think he meant semi-automatic, but that's what he said. One of the Secret Service agents said there was a "flurry" of shots.
Of course, in a straight line from the TSBD sixth-floor, the Tague shot would be a wild miss. Other explanations might be an ordinary lead or fragmenting slug from a rifle, at the end of a burst of fire. The rifleman let his finger off the trigger, and this often results in the front tip of the rifle lifting up a bit. Or just an unintentional additional squeeze of the trigger under very tense circumstances.
Do you have any hard data on the height of the limo windshield and the height of JFK's head?
Interesting topic.
The inevitable end result of our last 56 years
in Political Discussions
Posted
Steve T.-
There is a very serious message in Robert Reich's commentary, regarding a population turned cynical about its leadership. The establishment GOP, and the Donks are oblivious....
Not only that, both parties are beholden to the globalist security state.
"President Joe Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, authorizing $768.2 billion in military spending, including a 2.7% pay raise for service members, for 2022.
The NDAA authorizes a 5% increase in military spending, and is the product of intense negotiations between Democrats and Republicans over issues ranging from reforms of the military justice system to COVID-19 vaccine requirements for soldiers."
Well, 2022 doesn't look any better. But HNY anyway.