Benjamin Cole

11 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

"To his credit, President Trump released thousands of documents" (no comment about he was supposed to release them all or give specific reasons why not for every one, that what he did was illegal).  ". . . he's skeptical the current president has the 'courage' to 'do the right thing'".  Sounds kind of foxy to me.

Ron B--

Please see my separate post on the Fox news report. I agree with you regarding Trump, on this matter. 

That said, where is NYT-WaPo-WSJ-CBS-NBC on full disclosure...anybody? 

OK, even if you believe the WC...no full disclosure? Why not? Only Fox is clamoring for full disclosure. 

Give credit where credit is due, and Fox is due credit on this matter.

And damn those who do not call loudly and clearly call for full disclosure. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jfk-conspiracy-continues-fox-nation-gregg-jarrett

Like it or not, Fox is doing the best job, and by a mile, on the JFKA and Records Act. 

Why can't the modern left wing do this? The Daily Beast self-righteously and snottily ridiculed Oliver Stone. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jfk-conspiracy-continues-fox-nation-gregg-jarrett

Yes, there is a rancid sentence in the above regarding Trump. But 99% good. 

And compare this take on the JFKA, and the Records Act, to any other news outfit. 

(While I disagree with the sentence regarding Trump, it might be useful posturing. That is, if the Trumpers believe that disclosing all documents is a good thing, that adds to the pressure to do so. On the other hand, the modern left may oppose release of the documents if they think Trumpers want disclosure. See The Daily Beast.)

The shame here is on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NYT, Wapo et al.  In the vernacular of the street, "Man, where are you?" 

2 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

Hi Benjamin, I hope you find the work useful.  Having a complete real-time motorcade reconstruction based on all of the photos, films, and witness statements helps to explore the various theories regarding the crime scene.  In some cases it exposes some of the mistakes that witnesses made in their statements such as timing, but in general most of the witnesses seem to be correct regarding what they saw and heard.  Many of the contradictions between the witness statements can be resolved by understanding that some were distracted and missed the first or last shots.  After accounting for that, I noticed things started to fit together a bit more.

The exact timeline of Connally's wounding is tricky to judge due to the subjective nature of photo-analysis, but the first time I see him moving abnormally is about Z225-Z230 at the same time JFK raises his arms so I suspect they were both hit at roughly the same time.  Have a look at a slowed down Zapruder film to see them both react at the same time, with Connally's hat moving upwards rapidly and his whole body seems to twist and flinch with discomfort:

Whether this is a single bullet, or a pair of different shots I'm not sure, but the downward angle of 20-25 degrees through Connally does seem to match the sixth floor window perfectly if the wound occurred Z190-Z220 as the film would imply.  The thing that baffles me is the flat trajectory through JFK, as this doesn't really fit Connally's wounds unless JFK was hunched forward somehow (which looks unlikely judging from the Zapruder film).

As I recall, when Connally studied the Zapruder film frames before giving testimony to the Warren Commission he said he thought he was hit by frame Z230, so this might be worth considering.  Connally's testimony is very interesting regarding the shots, as he insists that he wasn't hit by the first shot, but was hit about two seconds later.  Here is a quote from his Warren Commission testimony which underlines this rapidity:

"I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took,"

4H133 - https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0071a.htm

If this is correct then Connally is telling us that there was more than one gunman.  Alternatively he may have been hit by the first shot, but suffered some kind of delayed reaction due to the shock from his injuries.  Either way it's hard to match his statements with the popular modern lone nut theory which involves a missed shot fired at Z160 or before, followed by a 3-5 second delay before the single bullet hits the victims.

Nellie Connally's statement also challenges the modern lone nut theory as she said the first shot hit JFK, and that the second shot came soon after, but before the head shot that we see at Z313.  As we see from the Zapruder film, all of this happened in the five seconds during Z225-Z313, so three shots in five shots is impossible for the clunky bolt action gun found in the TSBD (not forgetting that many witnesses also heard another shot well after the head shot, which would be a fourth shot).

I haven't studied the medical side too deeply, but from what I have heard from other researchers is that it might have been possible for the wrist wound to have occurred from the shrapnel which emerged from JFK's head and was projected forward in various directions.  It's probably impossible to know with certainty, but maybe this explains why CE399 was not damaged more, i.e. it didn't actually hit the wrist bone and it simply went into the thigh directly from the chest wound?  Judging from Z312 of the Zapruder film Connally's right hand was exposed and facing upwards at the time of the head shot so it's certainly possible for the wrist wound to have occurred then.

I'm fairly open minded about exploring different theories to explain the crime scene evidence.  Any theory that fits with the known facts and has no loose ends is well worth considering.  A second gunman is quite possible, and judging from the witness survey I compiled, about 60% of those who gave clear information suggested that at least two of the shots were fired in rapid succession (within a second or two, which is impossible from the gun in the TSBD).  The majority of these witnesses mentioned that this double bang was towards the end of the gunfire, although a few did hear a double bang at the beginning.

" It's probably impossible to know with certainty, but maybe this explains why CE399 was not damaged more, i.e. it didn't actually hit the wrist bone and it simply went into the thigh directly from the chest wound?"

My take is that CE 399 was bogus, fraudulently entered into the evidentiary record at the FBI lab. Have you not read the excellent work by Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar and others? 

30 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

There have been claims that Trump was not militarily aggressive or interventionist. I see no truth in that. He stated intent to take and keep Syria's oil, with military deployed in Syria to accomplish that end. He sought to invade Venezuela and take its oil, and the only reason he did not was because he was told it could not be done. There is that famous banquet of Latin American leaders in which Trump went around asking each one how they would feel about Trump taking over Venezuela--every single one, without exception, answered negatively, to his disappointment. Trump came into office threatening in the most unbelievably inflammatory language nuclear war on North Korea. He talked about relocating the entire population of Seoul, followed by giving an order to withdraw family members of US personnel from South Korea, an order which was simply not carried out even though Trump gave it, for fear on the part of generals and diplomats that it would spook North Korea into thinking an attack was imminent. Trump later did seem interested in a peace settlement with North Korea though it never happened.

Trump actually threatened a US ally, Iraq, with crippling "sanctions like they've never seen" (this to a country which has had hundreds of thousands of children's lives lost from sanctions) because the Iraqi parliament had asked the US to leave Iraq, which to Trump was a horrible affront meriting extremely severe punishment, wife-beater logic. Trump threatened millions of innocent civilians on the other side of the world with horrible suffering and consequences, collective punishment, for asking a guest to leave their space.

Trump has repeatedly, from beginning to end, criticized previous administrations for not taking and keeping Iraq's oil. 

There were fears that Trump would launch a war following the election.

But it is cited: Trump did not enter into any major wars. True, but not for not trying, in the case of Venezuela (which had done nothing against the US; zero self-defense rationale for invading Venezuela). He wanted to invade Venezuela. He did not get his wished-for invasion of Venezuela, and other military adventurisms such as forcibly taking control of other nations' oil supplies on the other side of the world, for the same reason his attempt to stay in power after losing the election did not succeed, because he was not able to do so, because he had not attained full control of the executive branch. He did not have his own generals in place who would carry out any orders he would give. That is the only reason the Trump presidency is not remembered for having gotten into wars, or staying in the presidency by force indefinitely after losing the election.

I keep thinking of one sincere young woman I remember way back in 2016 who, with utmost earnestness, said she had thought and thought about it every which way, and had come to the conclusion that Trump was simply not a good man.  

Trump's "America First" was not about being peaceful in the world, but about getting what a bully wants in the world.

There is no Penn Trump Center advocating peaceful resolution of international conflicts through the rule of law. With Trump, there are only two options I see: a fascist out of power, or a fascist in power. That's it, as far as Trump is concerned. The same dynamics that were operable with General Edwin Walker and right-wing politics in the early 1960s. 

 

Greg D.

Verily, Trump was a nut, from the moon. Fascist? Maybe in the modern definition, although Trump's lionization of the military, or imperial foreign policy, seems rather muted by DC standards.

What say then of LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Bush jr? The Reagan defense build-up, Iran-Contra? If Trump is fascist, what term do you apply to the aforementioned? 

My point (perhaps belabored) is that Trump was not a member of the national security state-globalists, or any DC elite. He was an outsider, a former Reality TV show host, a carnival barker. 

You are correct, the national security state (the executive branch) did not report to Trump, and probably worked to undermine him. 

I may have a different opinion of you on the blob of globalists running US foreign policy, that I consider a paid-for front for multinationals.  

"Peaceful resolution of international conflicts through rule of law?"

Another oddity: It was Trump's Secy State Pompeo, who nearly alone on the global stage talked about Beijing and the CCP. Before the Trump Administration, all the globalist-academic-media blah-blah was on how China was "liberalizing" (this must still be the narrative at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy & Global Engagement). 

Strange how the world turns...who would have thought the half-wit Trump could change the global conversation on the CCP? 

Anyway, I am just an old man living in the mudflats of central Thailand (it is monsoon season). No worries, DC is back to being run by the people who always run DC. I have no say in the matter. 

Just my two cents. 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    We had a lengthy debate about Russia-gate here on the forum a year or two ago.  It started on a thread about Mark Zaid that got moved to one of the other boards, if I recall correctly. 

    Without belaboring the point on this thread, let me just say that my own belief is that Trump is a Russian asset who has been enmeshed with Russian oligarchs and the Russian mafia for years.  I think Putin and the FSB nailed Trump with some kind of kompromat prior to 2016, then intervened in our 2016 election to put their compromised asset in the White House.

   IMO, Trump and Manafort successfully stonewalled the Mueller investigation, then Barr halted, suppressed, and misrepresented it to the American public.  Perhaps we'll eventually get the facts.

   As for the Biden tangent, please stop the what about-ism.  This thread is about Trump and January 6th.

W.---

OK, we have different views on Trump.  

Not sure about the "what about-ism" accusation. We are trying to get to the bottom of the 1/6 scrum. 

If what happened to Trump was a "re-installation of regime operation"---in my view, a live possibility---then Biden's neoliberal, globalist views are germane. Why was Biden installed? 

Certainly you cannot get much more globalist than the China-funded Penn Biden Center and the neo-liberal globalist views abundantly, fulsomely and exuberantly displayed there. Or on Nancy Pelosi's webpage. 

Biden-Pelosi are avid globalists, and support internationalism, alliances and the hypermobilized and worldwide US military. In effect, the global guard service for multinationals, on steroids from the Smedley Butler days. 

Trump was an oddball in such matters, perhaps corrupt on some scores as you say. The regime wanted a compliant president back in the Oval Office. Trump spoke of unilateralism, and leaving Afghanistan, Germany and S Korea. Trump lacked the intellect and discipline to accomplish much.

There is no Penn Trump Center advocating global interventionism. 

BTW, in the old days, we were told Russia was bad, bad, bad due to its being a communist nation.

Today, Russia is capitalist-kleptocrat nation---some say the same thing about the US. But we are still at odds with Russia? 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Let me take a wild guess, Ben.

Did it have anything to do with the multiple contacts that Trump's advisors and campaign associates had with Kremlin officials in 2016 -- e.g., Veselnitskaya, Kilimnik, Lavrov, et.al.?  🤥

The last time I checked, Spy-gate, Obama-gate, and Nunes-Memo-gate all turned out to be nothing burgers cooked up by Trump to deflect attention away from his involvement with the Kremlin.

As for the subject of this thread, Rosen's recent Senate testimony, apparently, implicates Trump in a very serious plot to overturn the election.

W.--

I do not know if you are a "neoliberal" or not, and that is fine, whatever your views are.  

Personally, I am a non-interventionist, more in the JFK line. 

For me, it is unsettling to read how the Biden Penn Center promotes itself. 

Of course, I am dubious about buzz words, such as "American global engagement." Such phrases could be quite benign, or could signal support for a global military establishment, that is a global guard service for multinationals. The Deep State-globalist combine. 

So, China is benign, and the Russians are bad, bad, bad. 

I happen to think Putin is a thug, but Xitler...probably worse. 

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

Let me take a wild guess, Ben.

Did it have anything to do with the multiple contacts that Trump's advisors and campaign associates had with Kremlin officials in 2016 -- e.g., Veselnitskaya, Kilimnik, Lavrov, et.al.?  🤥

The last time I checked, Spy-gate, Obama-gate, and Nunes-Memo-gate all turned out to be nothing burgers cooked up by Trump to deflect attention away from his involvement with the Kremlin.

As for the subject of this thread, Rosen's recent Senate testimony, apparently, implicates Trump in a very serious plot to overturn the election.

W.--

There seems to be a vast range of opinions on "Russiagate"---Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, probably the three best DC reporters going---say that Russiagate amounts to nothing. 

Are meetings and contacts mere variations of the old "guilt by association" standard? 

I am no friend of Paul Manafort. If he was a Russian agent...why was he charged not with espionage or sedition, or some such crime? As I recall, Manafort was charged with tax evasion, lying on on a loan application and for failing to register as a foreign lobbyist (the latter charge leading to a rush of such registrations in DC). 

Do we have an "guilty until proven innocent" standard for Manafort, when it comes to whether he was a Russian agent or not? 

---30---

The story on the financing of the 

is worth a look.

It appears the money to finance the Penn Biden Center came from mainland China.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2020/05/penn-biden-center-china-undisclosed-donations-complaint-millions

The student newspaper, and Philly papers, before Biden became the D Party nominee, ran op-eds asking why Biden was getting so much money from U Penn for doing nothing. 

https://www.inquirer.com/news/joe-biden-penn-salary-lectures-20190712.html

OK, we can connect dots, if we are so inclined. 

The CCP gives money to the U Penn to create the Penn Biden Center. And U Penn gives Biden more than $900k. 

Money is a fungible commodity. Did the CCP essentially give Biden $900k? 

The answer to that question is entirely a matter of perspective, and in the US, partisan politics. 

It is a variation of the guilt by association routine. We can say Biden is bought off by the CCP, or we can declare the money has no effect on Biden's policy making. 

I consider Biden innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

     Indeed.  It's amazing to see how effectively Trump's lawyers have succeeded in suppressing any evidence of his alleged crimes through endless court appeals, gag orders, etc.

     Remember when Trump announced before the 2016 election that he would release his tax returns after the audit was completed?

     That was five years ago.

     Most recently, someone leaked Jennifer Weisselberg's New York grand jury testimony about Donald Trump allegedly telling her, in person, about his scheme to commit tax fraud.

     The only subsequent news was that the judge imposed a gag order on Ms. Weisselberg. 🤥

Trump lacks any moral fiber. 

Still, the national security state is happy to install and work with people lacking any moral fiber--or uninstall them if desired. 

Did JFK lack moral fiber, and that is the national security state installed LBJ? 

The bigger point---why did the national security go after Trump from even before he set foot in office? 

From Nancy Pelosi's webpage:

The United States works to combat global terror by working with our allies to protect human rights and prevent radicalization.

To move our nation forward in uncertain times, Congress will work to preserve our alliances abroad and ensure our national security at home by promoting peace, progress, and prosperity across the globe.

That works out nicely for the globalist-multinationals, no? 

6 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

We must remember that, prior to the creation of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection attempt, Congress attempted to create an INDEPENDENT COMMISSION to investigate.

And Republican Senators killed that attempt.

Which begs the question: did they not want the incident investigated...or did they WANT a partisan investigation that they could denounce?

Either way, it appears obvious that the LAST thing they wanted was the TRUTH to come out.

I am shocked---shocked!---that one or both of our two major political parties wants to obscure the truth. 

Mark Tyler--

I just reviewed your webpage, and I can see a thorough read will take more than one sitting, or a just a few days. Tremendous presentation. 

Anyway, though, I am puzzled why you contend Governor Connally being shot before he does a 180-degree turn in his seat. 

That is not how the Governor and his wife recall the timeline. JBC says he was just turning forward (from having turned around in his seat) when he was struck. My take is that this is borne out by the Z film. 

My take is JBC was shot from the rear about Z-296.

Dr. Robert Shaw has puzzled how JBC could have been shot through the dorsal (non-palm) side of his wrist, if the bullet came through his chest first. Try touching the dorsal side of your wrist flat against your chest. That is an interesting question too.

Also, what about the possibility of silencers, pneumatic weapons, or simultaneous shots? 

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Surprised Philip Zelicow didn’t get another nod. 
 

Would a public jury type situation not be better? Picked at random, a person without a criminal record from each state? Does that seem fairer? One lawyer from the prosecution and defence presenting? Or am I hoping for utopia? 

Probably no select committee or commission is the best idea, and let the Justice Department try to prove a case in an open court of law, before a jury of peers, wherein defendants have counsel.

You still have a problem that if defense counsel wanted to call people from the intel community, they might simply not appear or would fearlessly dissemble. 

Right now, the case is clear against individuals in the scrum---they broke the law.  Many appear to be mentally challenged. 

One question is whether there were instigators in the crowd, and who the instigators worked for.  

Presently Jan, 6 select committee appears intent on blaming Trump for inciting the scrum, through a speech he gave that day. They may have a problem in that Trump said in this speech, 

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

But the select committee does not have prove its case before a jury, they only have to state that their investigation has found Trump instigated the riot/occupation of the Capitol.

We do not know if the select committee has more information, of actual Trump actors working with, or instigating members of the scrum to occupy the Capitol. 

We also do not know if non-Trump government infiltrators, plants, informants or assets played in a role in provoking the events of Jan 6.

Evidently, reporters are saying the kidnap plot of Governor Whitmer would have never happened, that it was in fact enabled, by the involvement of federal agents and informants. So we know the FBI is actively infiltrating groups, often providing financing and even planning. 

Egads, that reminds of case now decades old, and how wide the berth is for "entrapment." 

On October 19, 1982, (John) DeLorean was charged by the US government with trafficking cocaine following a videotaped sting operation in which he was recorded by undercover federal agents agreeing to bankroll a cocaine smuggling operation.^[5] 

You may remember the odd stainless-steel cars DeLorean made. Anyway, there he was on film planning to be a bigtime dope dealer, and I assumed he would doing hard time. He got off, on "entrapment." 

If it turns out some of the half-wit participants in the Jan. 6 scrum were encouraged or financed by intel agents...

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

We'll just be watching those two commission scenes in The Parallax View. 

Let me ask you this: If Liz Cheney had been on the old HUAC, or the WC, or the 9/1/ commission, or the HSCA....how do you think she would have tilted the investigation? 

Now Liz Cheney sits on the 1/6 select committee...

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But something curious about the article is that the number of withheld or redacted documents has gone up from 17,000 to 31,000.

It would be nice if there was just one straight line anywhere in the entire JFKA story.

17,000? 31,000? 

2 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

The MSM journalists or more especially editors understand the wishes of there employers.  With what is it 95-98%of the msm owned by the 1-2-5 % the message from the top is pretty clear.  Nothing to see here, move on.

I agree with you. 

10 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I vote for this option..or it may have been the spearpoint of a deluded and sick group seeking to overthrow the election---an attempted insurrection. Trump was the leader. In my opinion, this is the truth. I am still waiting for a decent governmental investigation into who killed JFK.  In my opinion,  JFK was killed by right wing fascists who believed in the Domino theory {if Vietmam goes communist, all of Asia will go communist). Anti - Castro Cubans may have been involved and certain mafia figures may have played a role. 

It may be that the House select committee investigation reports as you believe...that there was an insurrection planned by Trump. 

Unfortunately for all of us, the select committee is a highly political body. Their report may be no better or worse than the old HUAC reports, the Warren Commission, the HSCA or the 9/11 commission. 

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

You're right, simple logic, there are more people alive that are accountable in 9/11, than JFKA. Even so the JFKA if ever exposed or acknowledged signifies the start of corruption, the public must then seek the truth in every major even since, which takes us to 9/11 and beyond. We won't be enlightened on either front. Also, how many years have they had to erase any incriminating docs? Its a lot ... For us to believe the organisations responsible will fire out the truth in 2021, we'd need to be totally delusional. 

It is galling. 

I understand there are people who think the official story on LHO is true. Fine, we all have different takes on history.

But who can be against disclosure of JFK and 9/11 docs? 

And the mainstream media should be hopping mad about this...how can someone be a journalist, when there is selective disclosure of documents? 

If the 9/11 folks can't get the docs released...the less influential JFKA community must have even less chance. 

But hey, the WaPo is woke....

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well, even if it's themselves someone needs to investigate the insurrection and attempted fascist coup.

Not to belabor a point, but innocent until proven guilty. 

How about "someone needs to investigate if there were plans for an insurrection and attempted fascist coup." 

We should not assume guilt, and then launch an investigation confirm what we believe.

A scrum in the Capitol may just a scrum involving loonies...

...or it may have been triggered by some agent provocateurs to make a propaganda event, by some who took advantage of the scrum...

or it may have been the spearpoint of a deluded and sick group seeking to overthrow the election---an attempted insurrection. Maybe Trump was in on it. 

If an unknown group or Trump planned an insurrection, they sent exactly one man with firearms into the Capitol. (I assume the DEA agent was not part of an insurrection).

This strikes me underpowered. 

1 minute ago, Ron Bulman said:

Exactly why the House Committee should look closely at this historical attempt to replace (perceived) Democracy with fascism.

I would prefer an independent, non-government committee, but given special powers of subpoena, investigate the Jan. 6 scrum. 

"OK, so the US Capitol Police, who report ultimately to Senators Tim Ryan, Amy Klobuchar and Jack Reed, and Congressperson Zoe Lofgren, decide to do what on Jan. 6? This is a legislative police force, and reports only to Congress. It is not an executive branch agency. 

The US Capitol Police have 2,300 officers.  In the vernacular of the street, "Man, where were they?" 

---30---

Do you think a Congressional committee is going to conclude that Congress itself, and Amy Klobuchar et al, are to blame for not putting 2,300 officers on the lines Jan. 6? 

Many (most?) of the Capitol police who were on duty Jan. 6 did not even have billy-clubs or shields.

Remember, Capitol Police report to Congressional leadership.  When was the last time elected officials blamed themselves for failure? 

10 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

It's obvious most of the Capital police really were committed to stopping the rioters and truly did risk their lives in this effort.

However, I could also believe that at least some if even a few of the police on duty that day ( "a date that will live in infamy" ) were sympathetic to the Trump inspired mob and their cause.

And in the least, "pretending" to be fully confronting the lynch mob but not seriously so?

Its a fact that many in the Trump mob were retired and even active duty police and fire and military people. 

Who tend to be much more right wing in their political views than most other profession people. I am sure at least some of those Capital police personnel ( of the same profession ) had the same political leanings.

And to think that some of these police people who may have been sympathetic to the Trump madness hoard, might be awarded one of those highest honor "Medals Of Bravery" by Biden?

Cringe.

Joe B.---

If the House select committee wants to "get to the bottom" of how the scrum ended up inside the Capitol...why are they leading with highly emotional presentations by US Capitol Police officers?

This strikes me as theater, not investigation. 

No intelligence reports? No word from informants inside various terrorist groups?  No confessions by agitators that they planned, say, simultaneous assaults on multiple entrance to the Capitol---although that still begs the question, why such lightly defended entrances?

The FBI says they arrested Enrique Tarrio, the Afro-Cubano chairman of the Proud Boys (and FBI informant) on Jan. 4 to prevent him "from storming the Capitol." Curiously, the FBI released Tarrio on Jan. 5. Who knows why. But obviously, the FBI thought a scrum at the Capitol on Jan, 6 was a live possibility. 

OK, so the US Capitol Police, who report ultimately to Senators Tim Ryan, Amy Klobuchar and Jack Reed, and Congressperson Zoe Lofgren, decide to do what on Jan. 6? This is a legislative police force, and reports only to Congress. It is not an executive branch agency. 

The US Capitol Police have 2,300 officers.  In the vernacular of the street, "Man, where were they?" 

Of all 600+ rioters arrested who breached the Capitol, only one (and possibly one more, to be explained later) had a firearm. The lone individual was "Christopher Alberts," and he was released immediately on no bail. He was also wearing body armor and carrying a gas mask. Huh?

There was another sicko arrested that day who had firearms and molotov cocktails, named Lonnie Leroy Coffman, but he was arrested in the District of Columbia, not inside the Capitol. He had not breached the Capitol.

I had the impression that many people entering the Capitol were armed with actual firearms, but that turns out not to be true. Just one (and maybe one more). 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases?combine=coffman

You can run a search term for "pistol," "rifle," "revolver," "gun" etc and see what you come up with. Remember, check to see if the suspects had actually breached the Capitol, or where arrested elsewhere.

However! And this gets mysterious my friends. 

There was a DEA agent inside the Capitol, who (it is charged) flashed his badge and was carrying a firearm, and he was arrested! Mark Sami Ibrahim, is his name. 

Well, when you look at history closely...it tends not to follow the approved narratives....

53 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

They can't be protecting the sources, because they're all dead. They must be protecting the METHODS and that to me is disturbing.

Well, maybe METHODS, but also perhaps greater clarity on who was LHO. If LHO was a CIA or military asset, even if sometimes unwitting and manipulated, that would disaster. 

A CIA asset murdered the President? 

If there is even one memo indicating LHO was being directed somehow...or one memo firmly indicating files have been cleansed regarding LHO...one memo indicating Antonio Veciana did in fact meet LHO and David Atlee Phillips...one memo indicating a false flag operation was planned on Nov. 22 in Dallas

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     Biden will never release any classified documents about 9/11.  No way.  Even Trump balked at doing that.

     There was a time when many people thought that Trump might be a 9/11 Truther.   During his Republican primary debates with Jeb Bush, Trump said, "When I'm President the American people are going to find out who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11."

     Never happened.  In fact, Trump's first presidential trip abroad was to Riyadh, where he did the Sword Dance with the Saudi Royal Family.

I completely and without slightest hesitation condemn Trump for keeping JFK and 9/11 records away from US citizens.  He lacked the moral character to honor his promises, a signal failing. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1276138

9/11 families to President Biden: Don't come to our memorial events

Evidently, President Biden the campaigner said he favored releasing 9/11 docs still kept under seal.

"Eagleson said his (9/11 survivors) group was optimistic after a letter from candidate Biden in October pledging transparency about the matter.

'I intend to be a President for all Americans, and will hear all of their voices,” Biden wrote. “The 9/11 Families are right to seek full truth and accountability. ... I will direct my Attorney General to personally examine the merits of all cases where the invocation of privilege is recommended, and to err on the side of disclosure in cases where, as here, the events in question occurred two decades or longer ago.'"

But now....not so much. So the group has disinvited Biden to its annual memorial event. 

Of course, under the JFK Records Act, President Biden must decide on Oct. 26 what to release, in terms of JFK Records. 

Well, given the 9/11 outlook...looks grim.  

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Ordinarily most would be financially attached to the system, or be over a barrel for something they had done in the past, Truman obviously wasn’t gaming the system to enrich himself and had nothing to lose by speaking out. He probably deeply regretted the way he had been duped and the end result. 

David McCullough wrote a book on Truman that is an easy read, and perhaps a bit of a hagiography. Truman was no dummy. The dropping of A-bombs remains horrific--on the other hand, the Americans would lose 10,000 men storming a single small island in the Pacific. Life had become cheap, and after losses like that....the US was firebombing cities in japan and Germany. 

McCullough was not the type of writer to delve into the post-war national security state, and the growing power of multinationals.  A power that has grown to this day.