Bob Ness

On 12/4/2023 at 3:16 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

That will be quite a tale if six voters in Colorado can keep Trump off of ballots nationally in the pending election. 

Does that set up Mike Johnson as a possible candidate (if Trump is kept off of ballots nationwide)?

The GOP field---DeSantis, Haley and Ramaswamy (two Indian-Americans, btw)---is not overwhelming.

But then, Biden looks like a thin sack of potatoes.   

RFK2 has a shot, given the anemic gruel being offered by the two major parties? 

 

Ben, I'm begging you to read what you post before you submit. It's ridiculous.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This is 2nd district court judge Sarah Wallace of Colorado.  Thanks to her, Trump will be on the ballot in Colorado. 

 

It's being appealed. Her finding will most likely stand. They may remand back to her. The plaintiffs may appeal up if not.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

But an appellate court could overturn the part about the presidential office not being an office of the United States, right?

In which case it would go to the Supreme Court and be overruled by four corrupt justices and two additional conservative justices.

So Ben doesn't need to worry about that possibility.

 

It's before the State Supreme Court. I'm curious as to how they are going to rule the President isn't an officer of the United States. Does that mean SCOTUS will have to revoke POTUS' authority also? It's a CF. Hot potato. That's why she punted it IMO. Doesn't take Harvard law to figure this out:

18 USC §2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Check back in April when Ben starts arguing Trump got a bum steer on this one. To me this confirms the intent of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Any one who is convicted of this gotta sit out.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the finding of fact in the Colorado case doesn't require a jury because Trump isn't being tried for anything.

It wasn't a trial. The trial was for removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado State. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no one should hold office in the U.S. if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [U.S.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The finding of fact relates to whether Trump did just that and whether he should be disqualified or not. The Judge found that the Presidential office is not an office of the United States (I can't fathom that but whatever) but also found he did engage or helped those who were. It creates a problem because there is a finding that he did in fact engage in insurrection. Appellate courts aren't likely to overturn that.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I assume this usually happens when defendants have "copped a plea" or looked at the legal bills, and decided to go with the quickest route possible through a ponderous court system. In Illinois, maybe the defendants have an "arrangement" with the judge. 

Or when an Orange dumbass and their attorneys decide they prefer a bench trial such as the civil case being tried in New York.

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, we have a state judge in Colorado, not a federal judge, hearing a case against Trump. 

A federal court is not the appropriate venue obviously. The action is in Colorado and involves Colorado law. A state judge presiding is how that "tricky" and suspicious legal framework is supposed to go. Why would it be in federal court? Shoot Ben, I'll bet that judge even went to law school and has presided over other trials!

This is why it's so easy to con Trumpers. You really ought not believe everything you hear on Faux News. Maybe you just made it up. I don't know.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I think my review of what a state judge did stands. 

It stands as you don't know what you're talking about. That's about it. I explained it in simple terms. You don't understand and that's ok.

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I confess to not being an authority on Colorado law. 

I would prefer before anyone is convicted of being an insurrectionist, that they be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of peers, in an open court, when provided with adequate counsel. 

If they have a different standard in Colorado, so be it. 

Ben. It's the standing everywhere. Juries aren't asked to make findings of fact. They're plumbers and schoolteachers and so forth. Please don't do this. Would you really have that in a case brought against you? Have me and Sandy and a bunch of other numskulls determine the facts of say the chemical compounds found in a drink you served to a person who later died? 

The role of the jury is mostly limited to reaching a verdict based on the facts presented, while the judge retains the responsibility for making legal decisions and providing findings of fact and conclusions of law. They do this in conjunction with the parties who have supplied the arguments both pro and con in hearings and submissions. Juries don't do that because that's not what they're tasked to do nor are they qualified to do that. Sometimes they determine a limited set of facts in civil cases. For instance, regarding damages. The role of the jury is to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts presented to them, not determine the facts themselves.

In short:  juries do not make specific findings of facts in a case because their role is to determine the facts and reach a verdict, while judges make findings of facts to establish the truth and make legal decisions based on those facts. Juries do not directly hear arguments between the parties; instead, they listen to the presentations made by the lawyers and evaluate the evidence and facts presented to them.

A finding of fact is a determination of truth or existence made during legal proceedings, while a conviction is a formal declaration of guilt resulting from a trial or guilty plea. In the sense that Trump has been convicted? No that isn't at issue nor was it the purpose of the case. What is closer is that he isn't GUILTY in the legal sense but the judge found his alleged conduct to be true. It's distinguishable in that way. 

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks for answering my question! (Which I now know you did before I even asked it.)

 

Gonna have to have somebody proof him hahaha!

On 11/30/2023 at 12:13 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

Regardless of the specifics of Colorado law, I am uncomfortable with a sitting judge declaring a defendant guilty of insurrection, as a declaration of fact, and not one based on a finding of a court. 

Ben this is nonsense. That is a finding of a court. Please read your response before hitting submit. FCS what do you think the judge's finding was? It's no wonder why people think you're cloaking your Trumpinosis hahaha!

On 11/27/2023 at 7:39 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

Hypothetically, if the remaining records pertain to foreign governments that were and still are our strongest international allies, would Trump and Biden be justified in refusing to release the final tranche.

If RFK2 only views the assassination in Dallas through the constricted lens of THE CIA, THE US Military, THE US Government and disgruntled Cubans, I can see why he might fail to recognize there could be another persistent threat to national security: the collapse of critical international strategic and diplomatic alliances.
 

What if the files expose, for instance, that elements inside the governments of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, France, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Chile, Egypt, Israel and/or South Africa, or Ukraine and NATO, were complicit in their silence or worse.
 

Can we in fact be certain “our friends allied against ‘communism’” are not still withholding records of what they knew of the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. (I’m thinking in particular of the Vatican, SDECE / DST, and INTERPOL.) What might have been the contemporary repercussions of those revelations during the chaos of the Trump administration. Could Biden risk the fragile global balance while cleaning up after Trump.
 

Perhaps Robert Jr.’s myopia is reason for concern. Who is he listening to.

 

Yeah there are occasions where we're restricted  by agreements or treaties from revealing information. I don't know of any here but it is possible. I believe the UKs official secrets act demands restrictions that we have to abide by for that reason for example.

Nice political thread everyone. 

My 2c - who in their right mind would ever consider having this clown fly an airplane for them? But president is fine? It's beyond ridiculous.

Sandy can't we please shoo this doggy off into the political discussions forum?

On 10/19/2023 at 9:07 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Connect them for what purpose, Bob? Connect them to whom?

 

Sorry for late reply Sandy. JFK related stuff and I don't care to reveal who it is publicly.

I dunno. I've offered to help connect members here with probably the third most powerful person in the county and have been blown off so I get the impression a lot of the discourse here is BS. It's too bad. I'd do it myself but don't have the expertise to forward the argument.

Mods... Here we go again. This is BS.

This has nothing to do with the JFKA but is a convenient way to hook into a political argument.

On 9/29/2023 at 5:29 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Thanks for your reply. 

If Russian archives can confirm Solie and McCord were compromised or worse, that would be big stuff. 

 

Not necessarily Russian. Other Eastern Bloc countries could reveal information. It's not as likely though. I haven't looked into archives from those countries though.

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Very fair question. 

I don't know. That is what Newman should try to find out. 

After the "fall of the Soviet Union" some records were released on what the Russians thought of LHO, and what they had learned by spying on him (bugging his apartment for example). 

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/center-jfk-briefing-unveils-new-evidence-better-deeper-sense-soviet-unease-oswald

I am not criticizing Newman, and I have not read his book. Perhaps he did due diligence, and asked some of his sources could they contact the right people in Russia, and at least take a stab at retrieving Russian archives. 

I would try myself, but I know nothing of the right way to start (and I have this nagging problem of earning a living). 

EF-JFKA'ers? Anyone have clues to how to at least try to get Russians to verify if McCord and Solie were KGB assets? 

 

 

The only extensive information I'm aware of (there is probably other sources) is the Vassiliev files but I believe they predate most of what Newman's talking about. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/search?f[0]=topics:86448&fo[0]=86448

It's possible that Oleg Kalugin may have written about it but I haven't looked at that book for a while. He can probably be contacted directly.

Bob Baer wrote something along those lines: Russia Had “Fourth Man” as Spy Inside CIA, Book Says (theintercept.com)

34 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

"Mountain of evidence"??? It's a mole hill and it's full of holes.

If Oswald had entered the Cuban Consulate, he would have been photographed entering and leaving by the 27/7 surveillance cameras that the CIA operated outside the consulate. The claim that the CIA mixed up the photos and somehow "lost" the Oswald photos is absurd. Those photos would have been catalogued by date and time frame and camera.

Similarly, if Oswald he had called the Soviet Embassy, the call would have been recorded by CIA wiretaps, and the tape would have been carefully catalogued by date and time frame. I worked in signals surveillance in the military for years. The idea that the CIA "sent the wrong tape" to the FBI is ludicrous. 

Ludicrous is an understatement. The ol' BS meter is pinned right.

My take has always been there is a Deep State but not the cigar chomping back room cabal that seems to be insinuated in these discussions. I believe the Deep State is basically an outgrowth of bureaucracies that in and of themselves institutionally tend toward survival and foster those within them toward that aim. At the top of most of them are political appointees who may or may not have a firm grip on the true heads of the bureaucracy they lead, the deputies who are likely in career positions.

One of the advantages of an experienced politician is their familiarity with how the bureaucracies function. Inexperienced Presidents are routinely flummoxed by them unless their main advisors are good at fighting them. Bush-Cheney is a good example. The same with Obama and Biden and Reagan- Bush. Trump and Carter are bad examples IMO.

Kennedy and Johnson is an interesting dilemma to that theory. Maybe that pairing is an outlier.

15 hours ago, Ken Davies said:

My son was awarded the Member of the British Empire by the late Queen Elizabeth for his scientific papers and advice to the UK government which helped to save countless lives.  Masks, sheltering the elderly, and other measures pre vaccine c evelopment were crucial.

 

 

Seriously. How much does a mask cost and many refused to do that. 

Well done for your son. I have less than zero respect for the people who couldn't even be bothered to take precautions.

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Having spent months in a hospital battling leukemia during 2021, and another week this year battling COVID, I can say without any doubt that the lockdowns and mask-mandates saved hundred of thousands of lives, maybe millions. Numerous doctors and nurses told me horror stories about the pandemic when it was first taking off, before things got locked down. They had trailers full of bodies in parking lots. They had 20% of the nursing staff at home battling COVID on their own, because the hospitals were full up and the doctors were scared they'd get it too if they actually met with anyone with COVID who wasn't on death's door. This fear carries over to today, moreover. My hospital visit this year was a nightmare. My doctor and his staff refused to come into the room. Only one doctor ever visited, and that was for like 5 minutes a day, with him standing ten feet away. I was essentially locked in a room, with no visitors allowed, outside 6-8 visits per day from nurses to give me medication and check my vitals, and a single visit from a personal care assistant to change my bedding. Now that I think of it, even the housekeeping staff was scared as heck. Over the last three days, housekeeping would walk five feet in from the door, and remove the used bedding and trash. But they wouldn't clean the bathroom for me. I figured out why. They didn't want to end up stacked up in a trailer in the parking lot. 

Thanks Pat. As a spouse of a physician who battled this crap for two or three years from people whose primary qualifications were as self-proclaimed experts on Youtube and Facebook it was a nightmare beyond belief.  RFK Jr. or anyone else criticizing the efforts to stop the spread of Covid have played this game out of willful ignorance and stupidity and deserve ridicule. 

We had the freezer trucks also and I read the comments of people comparing wearing masks to being marched off to gas chambers and had to wonder just how stupid we've become as a country. She just gave up on the idiots and now one less Oncologist (along with many other medpros) have left their practice because of these fools. I assume they'll be able to cure their cancer by watching YouTube videos. Maybe RFK Jr. can help them out.

I wish you well. 

3 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

I want everyone to know that the full outline of the lawsuit is still unresolved.  The MFF statement outlines the case as it exists today.

The judge's decision was a mixed bag, with victories and defeats for both sides.  Both sides have the option to take action to affect the shape of the lawsuit in the days to come.  This is not a hard-and-fixed situation yet.

MFF, Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar will take the next few days to review their options.

I can't attach the entire decision, but it will be posted at Mary Ferrell Foundation's JFK site in the next day or two.

One portion of the judge's ruling worth thinking about is below.  We have created a good list of destroyed and missing documents at the Assassinations Archives and Research Center website.  As many know, AARC, Jim Lesar and Dan Alcorn are indefatigable allies in these battles for openness and transparency.  If anyone has any additions, please post them on this thread - after reviewing these two ARRC lists highlighted above?

Below is the excerpt:

Federal Records Act

Plaintiffs plead that NARA has violated the Federal Records Act by failing to request that the Attorney General take action after the ARRB identified destruction of assassination records by certain agencies. Under the Federal Records Act, if the Archivist becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of” an agency, they are required to notify that agency’s head and assist them “in initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records unlawfully removed and for other redress provided by law.” 44 U.S.C. § 2905(a). If the agency head “does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action,” the Archivist must “request the Attorney General to initiate such an action.” Id.

Plaintiffs aver that the ARRB Final Report identified intentional destruction of records by the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service, SAC ¶ 61(f), thus triggering the Archivist’s duty to ask the Attorney General to initiate an action for their recovery. Defendants argue this count should be dismissed because a referral to the Attorney General is only required under § 2905(a) for the recovery of records unlawfully removed, rather than destroyed. Defendants cite several cases interpreting an analogous provision to § 2905(a)—44 U.S.C. § 3106(a), which governs federal agencies—holding that agencies only have a duty to involve the Attorney General when records have been unlawfully removed. See, e.g., Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, No. 21-CV-00866-HSG, 2023 WL 163144, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023); Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. S.E.C., 916 F. Supp. 2d 141, 146–148 (D.D.C. 2013).

However, Defendants fail to contend with the differences in language between § 2905(a) and § 3106(a). While § 3106(a) only requires an agency head to “initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed,” § 2905(a) requires the Archivist to assist an agency head in “initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records unlawfully removed and for other redress provided by law.” 44 U.S.C. §§ 2905(a), 3106(a) (emphasis added).

Likewise, if the agency head fails to “initiate an action for such recovery or other redress” after being notified of “any such unlawful action,” the Archivist must request the Attorney General to initiate such action. 44 U.S.C. § 2905(a) (emphasis added).

In other words, as compared with § 3106(a), § 2905(a) includes an additional clause enabling the Archivist to initiate action through the Attorney General. § 2905(a) thereby seems to impose a broader referral duty on the Archivist than § 3106(a) imposes on agency heads because of its inclusion of “other redress provided by law.” Such a distinction also seems to be made within § 3106. Compare 44 U.S.C. § 3106(a) (requiring agency heads to take action for “the recovery of records . . . unlawfully removed”) with § 3106(b) (requiring the Archivist to make a referral when an agency head fails to “initiate an action for such recovery or other redress” after notification of “any such unlawful action described in subsection (a)”).

The legislative history of § 2905 and § 3106 supports this interpretation. In 1984, Congress amended § 2905 and § 3106 to require an Attorney General referral by the Archivist if an agency head failed to take action. The House committee report only discusses the provision in the context of initiating action for the “recovery of records unlawfully removed.” H.R. Rep. 98-707, at 21. By contrast, the final conference report explained the provision as requiring the Archivist to make a referral to the Attorney General if they are aware of “any such unlawful action,” where “destruction” was listed several sentences before as one action prohibited by law. H.R. Conf. Rep. 98-1124, at 27, as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3894, 3902. The conference report then explained that Congress would be notified in such instances “because of the frequency of incidents of removal or destruction.” Id. at 28 (emphasis added).10 Because the language of § 2905(a) and § 3106(a) are markedly different, Defendants’ references to cases interpreting § 3106(a) are not persuasive. § 3106(a) seems to require the Archivist to make an Attorney General referral in more circumstances than unlawful removal of records. It instead seems to require that the Archivist make a referral to the Attorney General if the agency head has failed to act and the Archivist is aware of, among other unlawful conduct, destruction of agency records.

Plaintiffs aver that certain agencies intentionally destroyed records, these agencies’ destruction of records was reported in the ARRB final report, and both the Archivist and the agencies failed to refer the matter to the Attorney General, thereby stating a plausible claim. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count 5 is denied, except to the extent it references NARA’s failure to pursue outstanding record searches.

 

This seems to me to be an ok order but I have a question for you based on a cursory reading of the original Government's response. Weren't they really testing your standing in the court and didn't that get rejected? That seems significant. I also think I remember they were claiming the Act itself expired after the ARRB closed and that has also been rejected??

Sorry if I'm going over stuff I should read more carefully- been awfully busy lately ...

Haven't looked at it yet but here you go. Link to order:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AlWejpY-MH3jjnf52tBXRuTH_VG6?e=KrDWqW

1 hour ago, Joseph Backes said:

I found these documents this morning.

104-10121-10285

In it it clearly states Morales works for the CIA since 6 Dec 1954.  This doc is dated 22 March, 1965.

It clearly states there is an agreement between the two agencies. 

In 104-10121-10287 Morales is being integrated into AID.  

Joe

Because of course Morales was critical in distributing humanitarian aid, democratic values and disaster assistance to beleaguered countries throughout the world. I'm sure of it.

24 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Hi Everyone,

@Benjamin Cole @Joseph Backes @James DiEugenio @Matt Allison @Roger Odisio @Bob Ness @Michael Craneno inferences should be drawn from judge cancelling oral argument. it just means that he feels the parties have adquately briefed the issues and he does not have any questions or issues to be resolved. 

We have a very good judge. he is the one who ruled the census question was improper and also ruled against Trump actions in the past. this does not mean he will rule in our favor but it shows he takes a hard look at cases involving presidents.

there are two motions before the judge (one from each side) that can have multiple outcomes . we are cautiously optimistic and will wait for the judges order. it will probably be issued in 30 days or so. could be longer, could be shorter.   

the press conference was recorded and will be posted on JFK Facts. I will also be discussing the status of the case in tonight's podcast. all are welcomes.

Yep. Totally agree.