Leslie Sharp

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

One might think friends of George Herbert Walker Bush or George De Mohrenschild might have stayed there in the past. Maybe LBJ or Dulles, Hoover, more?

Dallas Hotel Celebrates 100 Years of History (dallasexpress.com)

de Mohrenshildt lived next door to the Stoneleigh for a period of time, as did his friend Paul Raigordsky, in the Maple Terrace.  Both the Terrace and the Stoneleigh Hotel were owned by Corrigan Properties whose other investments included the Oak Lawn building leased by Jack Ruby for his Vegas Club. Leo Corrigan's son in law, Ed Jordan, was a VP at the Mercantile Bank whose tenants included Hunt Oil.

Corrigan also purchased the Adolphus Hotel some decades earlier; on the Adolphus board was one of Dallas's favorite sons, esteemed oil atty./ retired Col. Robert G. Storey who would serve as laision to Allen Dulles of the Warren Commission on behalf of the city of Dallas in the weeks following the murder of Kennedy. Col. Storey, along with Leon Jaworski (who was counsel of record to Schlumberger Oil Services) served on the legal staff to Judge Jackson during the Nuremberg Trials. Storey was fully apprised of the evidence of Otto Skorzeny's crimes.  Serving under Storey was Col. H. V. Williams who would return to the states to resume his role with NY based global real estate firm Previews Inc. which would, from the mid-fifties on, lucratively employ and provide a cover for Otto's wife Ilse as she pursued their international interests.  

In May of 1963, Leo Corrigan's architect of record in Dallas, T.E. Stanley would be among the first tenants of the building he designed for the corner of Rawlins and Wellborn in Oak Lawn; other tenants of the small building included Previews Inc., Ilse's employer.  Prior to moving into Oak Lawn Plaza, the president of Previews, John Tysen, had used Corrigan's Adolphus for his office address. Both Corrigan and Tysen were heavily invested in development in the Bahamas as was Hjalmar Schacht, known to have had lunch with Ilse Skorzeny in Dallas on November 7, 1963, at the Old Warsaw in the Maple area adjacent to the Oak Lawn neighborhood and a stone's throw from the Stoneleigh Hotel ... and full circle to Pugibet's arrival on November 22 just two days after known French assassins Alice Lamy and Jean Filiol checked in.

15 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I'm not obligated to tell you zilch about those or any other topics, and I will continue to dismiss your entire line of research until the LaFitte "datebook" is properly authenticated and verified for ALL assassination researchers to examine.

Deathbed confessions are germane to this thread. Why would you hesitate to weigh in on comparable confessions of  Hunt and Marcello — confessions that have been "cows of a sacred nature" to many in 'the community' resulting in decades-long distractions. 

Otherwise, I'm not sure why you're weighing in on a thread you find so irritating? challenging? unsettling?

FYI, Prior to launching this thread, I word searched Pugibet and found only this (see below) which mentions Lee (presumably Farley), but not a full dedicated thread.  Interesting to note that Howard asks, "did Pugibet have a connection with Jean Souetre, or any of that crowd?"  

14 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Not evidence. Also, Lee Farley surfaced all of this a decade ago - no LaFitte necessary!

Farley had Pugibet's confession?  I didn't realize that.

Did he also argue that it was Enrique and Lee who were solely responsible for the assassination of Kennedy in Dallas? Very interesting, Jonathan.

 

4 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Not evidence. Also, Lee Farley surfaced all of this a decade ago - no LaFitte necessary!

I'm curious: in the past, have you endorsed E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession?  Carlos Marcello's claims? Do you think Mac Wallace's prints are on the alleged weapon? Was he there under orders from Lyndon Johnson? Do you place unbridled faith in Fletcher Prouty's assertions?  Are you certain Ed Lansdale was in Dealey?  Or . . . Are you in lock step with the Warren Commission that Oswald as the lone gunman?  Perhaps you could provide a brief synopsis of what you think happened in Dealey for those of us unfamiliar with your theories? Otherwise, you're invited to sit back, quietly, as the question of Pugibet is pursued in an adult fashion.

@Michael Griffith


https://www.armitiere.com/livre/22797569-le-deuxieme-tireur-nouvelles-revelations-sur--cedric-meletta-bouquins

(google translation)
The Second Shooter - New Revelations About the JFK Assassination By Cédric Meletta

On November 22, 1963, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot dead in Dealey Plaza in Dallas. The images of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States shake all of America and quickly travel around the world. Sixty years later, the mystery of this attack has still not been solved. After the recent declassification of thousands of secret defense documents by the American authorities, a new lead has surfaced. Botched interrogations, obstructed investigations, relationships in high places: an individual seems to have been strangely exonerated from the FBI's first conclusions. This book, the result of an unprecedented investigation into the heart of American archives, reveals the name of a new suspect, Henry Pugibet. This former leader of a Vichy youth movement, close to the Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo as well as the godfathers of the Florida mafia, was in close contact with most of the alleged sponsors of the assassination. Thanks to dozens of pseudonyms and false papers, he managed to evade in-depth FBI investigations for decades. Why was he never brought to justice? What was the nature of his links with the all-powerful CIA of Allen Dulles? And, above all, what was he doing in Dallas on the day of the crime? After several years of research, Cédric Meletta puts forward in this book an original thesis concerning the most mysterious assassination of the 20th century and sheds light on the incredible journey of "Frenchy", the second potential shooter in Dallas.

Just now, Jonathan Cohen said:

Nobody, because he wasn't there.

And you know that because ....?

My major concern is the specificity of the claim (assuming I've read it correctly) that Pugibet was behind the fence. It's getting very crowded back there!

Looking back over emails with Hank, I'm reminded that Alan Kent's Pugibet research surfaced in March/April around the time we were locking in our understanding of Lafitte's November reference to "hotel" and Hank having confirmed with his source that the Stoneleigh was indeed their preference when in Dallas.

Hank then wrote in early April in response to Kent's early Pugibet draft, This underscores that some of this should be worked into footnote. A good one; an important one. Thanks. A lot.

I remember the issues then arose: if Lafitte didn't highlight Pugibet in the datebook but did highlight other primary characters (e.g., Canon, Askins, Souetre), should we infer Lafitte simply chose not to mention Pugibet in his November entries? Why? And, would that relegate him to a minor role? Would it be possible to determine at whose behest might Pugibet have been brought into Otto's strategy? Certainly his history makes sense of a significant degree of camaraderie, but where does he fit in the specifics of Dealey? Willoughby backup squad, 'kill' teams, Z. org., E. Johnson's team? And if, as claimed in this new revelation, Pugibet was a primary shooter ... who told him to get behind that fence?

For those reasons, following Hank's passing, we agreed that Alan's essay should be highlighted in the stand-alone essay.

Stunning deathbed confession as French man claims to have assassinated JFK — Express.co.uk, by Maia Snow, Maria Ortego
 

November 13, 2023:   '. . . In a staggering deathbed confession, a 60 year mystery has apparently been solved as a French man admitted that he was the 'second gunman' involved in the assassination of President John F Kennedy on November 22, 1963. . . . [Enrique (Henri) Ernesto] Pugibet was the grandson of a Frenchman who made his fortune in Mexico and was the son of a tobacco magnate. He was a self-styled businessman with six children from two marriages. He collaborated with the Nazis during the Occupation in France and then became a spy, a CIA agent recruited by Allan Dulles, the agency's director.

His actions have been the subject of a considerable number of reports and investigations in the intelligence community, both American and French.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1834399/deathbed-confession-jfk-assassination

 

Enrique Ernesto Pugibet: A Timely Visit to Dallas

by Alan Kent

excerpt (as published in Coup in Dallas . . . ) 

“A FBI informer,” Allen Wright, alleged that an Ernesto Puijet [sic] “checked into the Stoneleigh Hotel in Dallas on November 19, 1963.” “Puijet” was, according to Wright, a French gunman for hire who was posing as a cattle rancher. Wright asserted that “Pujiet” was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There does not appear to be an “Ernesto” or “Ernest” Pujiet involved in anything like what we will see that this person of interest is involved with. But “Ernesto Pugibet” fits the description given by Wright very well. (As an aside, I have worked through some of Fensterwald’s notes. He was not a secretarial-quality transcriber)

         Pugibet was—like Allen Wright—a person of interest to FBI and CIA. From a documentary study focusing on him, utilizing multiple trusted FBI informants as well as statements from Pugibet himself, we find that he had been a member of the French resistance during the Second World War—as an “anti-communist” he would emphatically declare to investigators, had been a naturalized citizen of Mexico from 1947 on, and had worked for the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture and also the notorious Mexican Federal Security, on the “Communist squad.” While going through the United States—he would say on a mission for the Ministry of Agriculture—in 1959, he was deported from the US after being convicted of a crime “involving moral turpitude.” . . .

We know from a coalescence of evidence that Pierre Lafitte was ensconced in the Stoneleigh Hotel on November 19–20, 1963, conducting meetings and making calls in furtherance of the final stages of the plot that felled President Kennedy. We know that Ilse Skorzeny was there as well, among others who were close to the ongoing plot. I contend that if a man with the lengthy resume of Enrique Ernesto Pugibet; a highly connected criminal who had been directly involved in a political assassination, checked into the Stoneleigh on November 19 and remained through November 22, as alleged by a man who was extremely well-connected himself, and this sequence of events turned out to be coincidental, that the bounds of coincidence would have been stretched almost to the breaking point. 

When Allen Wright gave this information to Bernard Fensterwald—years after he had attempted to give it to Jim Garrison—there was no hint of the use of the Stoneleigh as an assassination planning venue in any record that could be accessed. Wright clearly knew something of importance, and Pugibet clearly was involved in some way in the assassination of President Kennedy. . . .
 

Without dot-connecting ourselves into oblivion, I think that it is reasonable to see a long stretch of military, intelligence, and organized crime figures whose names we recognize: Willoughby, Canon, McWillie, Trafficante, Ruby, et al. Pierre Lafitte moved comfortably in this world, associating with Lansky associates Amleto Battisti y Lora and Paul Mondolini in Cuba, and Santo Trafficante in Florida and Cuba. And Dallas’ Norman Rothman, associated closely with Ernesto Pugibet, was directly centered in this milieu. Pugibet was a foot soldier, and there is much that we don’t know about him, but we can reasonably assert that he played some role in the assassination of JFK, and that we can, at least in a general sense, speak to his derivation; the path to his arrival at the Stoneleigh Hotel at such a critical time in US and world history. His role may have been small, or it may have been larger than we know, but he was there. He played a part in the history we are attempting to gather and set out. 

On 11/11/2023 at 8:41 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Speaking of Lifton, what happened to the book he was working on in his last years?

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Uh, Tracy Barnes? 

My initial thought as well, @Paul Brancato

Dick R. heavily influenced Alan Kent's analysis of the code "T" found in the Pierre Lafitte datebook, having surmised with Kent that the most likely candidate would be Tracy Barnes whose nickname was "Trick."  Albarelli was persuaded by Kent's arguments but decided to include them in essay form with the (internal) caveat we would continue to consider the possibility "T" may have been a more obscure operator, even perhaps a collective similar to QJ/WIN and WIRogue. Hank's concern was falling into a self-inflicted confirmation bias that because of Barnes' role in PBSuccess and his history with other agency characters referenced in Lafitte's records, we could be distracted and fail to track the more elusive clues left by Lafitte, e.g., OSARN and related, in particular the OUN. The pursuit continues.

Reading between the lines, I agree with @Anthony Thorne. I think it's implausible Barnes would be tied up actively supervising a company that employed teenagers. Do we know the timeline of this claim?

For the public record:

 

I'm anxious to hear who killed JFK, identified apparently in the Reiner-O'Brien podcast by the same title. 

But before listening to the first episode of the series, I am honor-bound to share (or perhaps re-share?) with our working group and the Coup Brief team the following emails from Hank Albarelli to Dick Russell dated January 14-15, 2019, related to details from the records maintained by Pierre Lafitte that Hank had entrusted with Dick in confidence prior to publication of Coup in Dallas. At the time, Hank had just become aware that Dick was heavily involved in a Rob Reiner/JFK project; I believe this new podcast is a spinoff from those efforts.  

Hank called me on the 14th of Jan. with the rhetorical question: how can Dick / Rob claim to have "solved the case" without using the revelations in Lafitte's records that I've shared with Dick? 

Hank and I both worried that Reiner and Russell — both of whom we admired professionally — might disregard certain information or even cannibalize or (unwittingly) distort details found in the Lafitte records that Hank considered to be among the most significant in recent decades.  I concurred, and continue to contend that Lafitte was privy to and directly involved with the nuts and bolts of the assassination plot for Dallas. 

The Lafitte revelations must be considered in full context, a luxury that to my knowledge, Reiner and O'Brien do not have.

After all, it was Dick who set Hank (and this writer) on the path of the JFK assassination investigation.

From: Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli>

Date: January 14, 2019 at 11:12:16 PM EST
To: dick
Subject: Re: Introduction

Who is ‘Rob and company’? We have had what we have now for a little longer than three years or more, but I fail to see what that means to anything: did we cross a line that marked us fair game to you? All you had to do was merely tell me that suddenly we had become competitors of sorts and that the nature of our Skyhorse-related business had changed. We did what we could to help you in your curiosity, promoted your work every opportunity, and . . . Such is life. 

From: Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli>

Subject: Re: Questions

Date: January 14, 2019 at 3:38:39 PM EST

To: dick

Dick, 

Things are moving pretty quickly, and as I shared with you recently, the data that has surfaced in the ledger papers is not only changing the complexion of future plans for the research, but possibly the first edition of the book due out soon.  I’m still considering how best to incorporate it, either in the book or down the line in a documentary …which prompts the following: 

If I understand correctly, the film project focused on your work had not intended to draw final conclusions about the assassination.  You will soon be privy to my conclusions, and further, you could well be privy to the ledger sheets in full were we to come to agreement.  Because of the unusual confluence of circumstances that no one could have predicted, I need to be assured that the integrity of my research is preserved until such time as we might maximize the impact, together.  Without an agreement, of course the material in "Coup" or any other information I share with you, cannot be incorporated into the project.

That being said, would not the film group behind your project be surprised to realize you had access to the final pieces of the puzzle?

Weeks (maybe months) ago I had asked  [documentary producer] to talk to you about your project, and gave him permission to pursue what seems to be an obvious window of opportunity. Would not your producers be interested in the possibility of a collaboration of some sort?    I might add that given the information in the ledger sheets, a similar argument can be made related to Peter’s ‘Mary Meyer’ project.  Apparently [documentary producer] has not pursued either.  Considering your authorship of the introduction to "Coup", it is a logical step, so I'm taking it. Not sure what it could amount to.   

 -----Original Message-----

From: Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli>
To: dickrusl <dick
Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2019 5:18 am
Subject: Re: Introduction

Dick, I did not say that I think you are trying to rip me off. I only underscored that not everything was forthcoming in our discussions. Perhaps you overlooked certain things. I’m not a man that can’t say I can’t misinterpret things. I do sometimes. In short, if you want to do the introduction as planned that is fine. In terms of sharing supportive information I think each item deserves a discussion about use. In short, I’m willing to keep things as they were. I respect you and your book. Sincerely, Hank

For the public record:

 

I'm anxious to hear who killed JFK, identified apparently in the Reiner-O'Brien podcast by the same title. 

But before listening to the first episode of the series, I am honor-bound to share (or perhaps re-share?) with our working group and the Coup Brief team the following emails from Hank Albarelli to Dick Russell dated January 14-15, 2019, related to details from the records maintained by Pierre Lafitte that Hank had entrusted with Dick in confidence prior to publication of Coup in Dallas. At the time, Hank had just become aware that Dick was heavily involved in a Rob Reiner/JFK project; I believe this new podcast is a spinoff from those efforts. 

Hank called me on the 14th of Jan. with the rhetorical question: how can Dick / Rob claim to have "solved the case" without using the revelations in Lafitte's records that I've shared with Dick? 

Hank and I both worried that Reiner and Russell — both of whom we admired professionally — might disregard certain information or even cannibalize or (unwittingly) distort details found in the Lafitte records that Hank considered to be among the most significant in recent decades.  I concurred, and continue to contend that Lafitte was privy to and directly involved with the nuts and bolts of the assassination plot for Dallas. 

The Lafitte revelations must be considered in full context, a luxury that to my knowledge, Reiner and O'Brien do not have.

After all, it was Dick who set Hank (and this writer) on the path of the JFK assassination investigation.

From: Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli>

Date: January 14, 2019 at 11:12:16 PM EST
To: dick
Subject: Re: Introduction

Who is ‘Rob and company’? We have had what we have now for a little longer than three years or more, but I fail to see what that means to anything: did we cross a line that marked us fair game to you? All you had to do was merely tell me that suddenly we had become competitors of sorts and that the nature of our Skyhorse-related business had changed. We did what we could to help you in your curiosity, promoted your work every opportunity, and . . . Such is life. 

From: Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli>

Subject: Re: Questions

Date: January 14, 2019 at 3:38:39 PM EST

To: dick

Dick, 

Things are moving pretty quickly, and as I shared with you recently, the data that has surfaced in the ledger papers is not only changing the complexion of future plans for the research, but possibly the first edition of the book due out soon.  I’m still considering how best to incorporate it, either in the book or down the line in a documentary …which prompts the following: 

If I understand correctly, the film project focused on your work had not intended to draw final conclusions about the assassination.  You will soon be privy to my conclusions, and further, you could well be privy to the ledger sheets in full were we to come to agreement.  Because of the unusual confluence of circumstances that no one could have predicted, I need to be assured that the integrity of my research is preserved until such time as we might maximize the impact, together.  Without an agreement, of course the material in "Coup" or any other information I share with you, cannot be incorporated into the project.

That being said, would not the film group behind your project be surprised to realize you had access to the final pieces of the puzzle?

Weeks (maybe months) ago I had asked  [documentary producer] to talk to you about your project, and gave him permission to pursue what seems to be an obvious window of opportunity. Would not your producers be interested in the possibility of a collaboration of some sort?    I might add that given the information in the ledger sheets, a similar argument can be made related to Peter’s ‘Mary Meyer’ project.  Apparently [documentary producer] has not pursued either.  Considering your authorship of the introduction to "Coup", it is a logical step, so I'm taking it. Not sure what it could amount to.   

 -----Original Message-----

From: Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli>
To: dickrusl <dick
Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2019 5:18 am
Subject: Re: Introduction

Dick, I did not say that I think you are trying to rip me off. I only underscored that not everything was forthcoming in our discussions. Perhaps you overlooked certain things. I’m not a man that can’t say I can’t misinterpret things. I do sometimes. In short, if you want to do the introduction as planned that is fine. In terms of sharing supportive information I think each item deserves a discussion about use. In short, I’m willing to keep things as they were. I respect you and your book. Sincerely, Hank

On 11/8/2023 at 1:15 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

Note to all:

1. We will survive a thread on the RFK2 campaign. 

2. Despite what you read, no matter who wins the 2024 election, it will not be TEOTWAWKI. 

3. But...we pretty know what will happen to the JFK Records, unless RFK2 wins. 

When did Robert Jr. first join the efforts to secure the withheld files? I ask in earnest.

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I repeat what I just wrote.

Its almost like some people do not want to have anything about RFK Jr, the JFK files, and the assassinations of the sixties tied in at all to the campaign, so they purposefully  make this political and hot historical.  Even after a specific warning not to do it.

Several questions:

When did RFK Jr. first lend the influence of the Kennedy name and megaphone to demands for the release of the JFK files?

Has he been an active, effective spokesperson for the JFK Records Act since its passing?

How is this history not directly tied to the politics of his presidential candidacy? 

Has 'the community' over-compartmentalized the assassinations of the sixties, failing to acknowledge how they reverberate in every election cycle and most apparent in 2016?  

Is release of the remaining JFK Files — critical to an accurate historical record — a prudent single-issue vote in this perilous political climate?

Would voters change their choice of president/administrations if further and presumably definitive facts behind the assassinations are made public?   

Would the CIA be dissolved? Would Homeland Security be dissolved?

Are the courageous and tenacious  Records Act attorneys developing a more convincing argument to be heard eventually by the Supreme Court?

and I'll venture a bit further:
Did Trump exploit 'the community' in 2016? Did Biden promise the release of the remaining files and then renege? 

 

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Leslie,

The reason I wrote specifically to you, giving you the rules for this thread, is because you were writing political anti-RFK things. Things that I didn't know were true or not.

As I said then, it is okay to write something about RFK2's politics if it is demonstrably true. So if you say that RFK got a donation from some group, and if it can be shown to be a fact, then it is acceptable for you to post it.

What you cannot do is draw a conclusion from what you posted. You can't say, for example, that RFK is (or may be) sympathetic to the views of those donors. You can't even say something like, can a person who accepts donations from those groups be trusted.

Just state the facts and make no commentary. That is acceptable. Though it may be treated as off topic. (I will let each individual reader decide that.)

 

Sandy, thanks for the additional clarification and I'll remain mindful of those stipulations. As indicated, I'm not accusing RFK Jr. of denying the 2020 election; I'm pointing to the fact that at least one of his significant donors continues to advance the disinformation, and was in fact an active participant in the December 18 Oval Office meeting during which it was proposed that the military seize control of election machines.  He, Patrick Byrne, also spoke at the January 5 pre-Jan 6 rally at which he stated things would get very interesting the following day; he also funded the failed Ninja Arizona audit, hosted strategy retreats for those who continued to promote unsubstantiated claims the election was rigged, and according to findings by the January 6 Committee, he provided jet service to several Proud Boys to rally in support of the failed candidate, Donald Trump in the days after the election.  

July 18, 2021 photo of RFK Jr. with General Mike Flynn — present at the December 19, 2020 Oval Office meeting, and Roger Stone — godfather of "Stop the Steal"  — speaks for itself. 

 

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Leslie,

Just so you know, this is a special, experimental thread. I have set a rule that nobody should say anything bad about any politician or political party.

If you say something that is demonstrably factual, that would be okay. But not if there is a negative commentary attached to it.

Thanks.

 

 
Thanks Sandy.

But, respectfully, how can one distinguish what should and shouldn't be scrutinized on a thread related a political candidate for the 2024 presidential election? I'm not criticizing Kennedy; I'm concerned about certain among his primary financial backers.

I think we all agree that no candidate gains in the polls without financial backing, The funding behind Kennedy's rise in the polls  is disturbingly unique in that significant sums derive from the very elements responsible for the political chaos of Jan 6 and attempts to overthrow our elected government, e.g. election deniers.

2020 election deniers should be under scrutiny ergo germane to deliberations focused on 2024 candidates.

(Feel free to delete this comment if you find it pollutes the experiment.)

Patrick Byrne has contributed large sums to the RFK Jr. campaign. Kennedy and those who run his PACs cannot be oblivious to the fact Byrne continues to sow doubt in the 2020 election. He has even recently walked back his harshest assessments of Donald Trump to the extent he says he regrets not having been more receptive.

Byrne along with Sidney Powell (who admitted guilt in the GA RICO case) and Gen. Michael Flynn inveigled themselves into the Oval Office on December 18 to strategize how to overthrow the 2020 election - up to and including proposal to mobilize the military to seize voting machines.  One of Byrne's current endeavors, America Project, flagrantly advances the ideology that paved the way for Trump's MAGA movement; how does Kennedy rationalize Byrne's financial support of his own candidacy?  https://americaproject.com/election-integrity2/

Founder of Conservative Colorado Think Tank Shared Election Conspiracy Video With John Eastman After Jan. 6. — Erik Maulbetsch, Colorado Times Recorder, Nov. 22, 2022

The conservative Common Sense Institute (CSI) says its rigorous research provides Coloradans with facts and data-driven analysis to help make informed decisions. Yet three days after the Jan. 6 riot, CSI’s founder shared a debunked election fraud conspiracy video with insurrectionist attorney John Eastman and set a meeting to discuss it further.

On Jan. 9, 2021, banking magnate Earl Wright forwarded the conspiracy video to insurrectionist attorney John Eastman, whom, despite helping President Trump incite a mob of supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, was still employed as CU Boulder’s Benson Center Visiting Professor of Conservative Thought. 

. . . [indicted co-conspirator in the GA RICO case] John Eastman’s response to Wright, which perpetuated the conspiracy, was first reported by the Salt Lake Tribune’s Bryan Schott. 

“Guys,

I have met with Patrick. There is huge relevance to this, and I have actually had very high-level meetings about it. We should talk more about it when I’m in Boulder next week, and also about how to respond to Dan Jacobson’s scurrilous letter just sent on behalf of the Benson Center, falsely accusing me of making allegations for which I had no evidence when I had already advised him that I had documented evidence for every statement I have made through this whole intense process.

John”. 

. . . The video was titled “Hillary, Bribes and election steeling [sic] – Patrick M Byrne.” The video has since been removed, but tech-CEO-turned-election-conspiracist Patrick Byrne has repeatedly claimed, including in several video interviews, that the 2020 election was stolen by the “Deep State” that he first interacted with while bribing Hillary Clinton with $18 million on behalf of the FBI.
                         * * *

Is it pure coincidence that someone within the Kennedy org. formed a PAC "COMMON SENSE"?
https://www.commonsensekennedy.com

Does the fact that Kennedy is comfortable within this milieu indicate  he too questions the validity of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? If not, he should distance himself and reject their contributions.  If so, shouldn't he be transparent? Would that impact their financial support? Would his numbers continue to rise without that financial support?

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Dick Russell's observations regarding Politico can be verified, checked out. You can read Politico and draw your own conclusions. 

Politico (stylized in all caps), known originally as The Politico, is a Washington metropolitan area, U.S., based politics focused newspaper company owned since 2021 by German publisher Axel Springer SE. It covers politics and policy in the United States and internationally.

In sharp contrast, nothing in or about the Laffite datebook can be verified. 

Unfortunately, there it stands.

 

 

 

 

The topic is RFK Jr.'s rise in the polls.  Why won't you speak to the concern that he's backed by Libertarians with less than admirable histories, which many argue are anti-democracy. 2024 will not be about party; 2024 will pit democracy vs. authoritarianism. 

I suspect reasonable people would agree that you've not made the case in this post that Politico is an intel operation. Conversely, astute journalists the calibre of Dick can listen to Tucker Carlson and draw subjective conclusions he's a fascist propagandist; would that be sufficient to persuade you that he is?

(Please do not misrepresent Dick's analysis of the db: he identifies 8 entries, most of which dovetail with his own exclusive research, and walks the reader  step by step through his reasoning that (short of some elaborate sociopathic mind game hoax - my words not his) Lafitte had information that wasn't in the public domain until the mid-1970s. . . . Anticipating your retort, I recommend we resume this discussion on the Lafitte Datebook thread  launched some months ago.)

34 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

As we have been instructed to avoid "politicking" in the EF-JFKA, I will refrain from discussions in that area.  

I will say beware of Op Mock ops to make you believe RFK2 is linked to "the far right."

Dick Russell's well-documented and informed exposes on which formerly alt-left media organizations have been co-opted is worth reading and thinking about.  I advise all EF-JFKA'ers to read Russell's articles. 

This is Part I of Russell's report, and from there you can find Part II.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cia-liberal-media-outlets-the-real-anthony-fauci/

As you say, Russell gave a very limited review of the authenticity of the purported Laffite datebook. 

I place no credence in the Laffite datebook. 

I gather Russell is a RFK2 backer. 

Can you speak directly to the issue RFK Jr.'s donors, specifically Byrne and Mellon, that should cause a degree of concern? The Mellon family wealth is a direct result of toxic capitalism. Their oil interests contributed to the very environmental crisis Kennedy has spent decades addressing. Further, accepting significant money - in crypto currency no less - from at least one individual who participated in meetings to scheme the overthrow of our Constitutional government is disturbing. 


RFK Jr. touted bitcoin but said he wasn’t an investor. Financial records show otherwise

 

After CNBC made multiple attempts to get a comment, the Kennedy campaign said hours after the publication of this story that “the investments were not his, but his wife’s. He is not involved in her investment decisions.” The campaign did not say for how long Hines held the bitcoin investment or when she purchased the asset.

Later Friday, however, a campaign representative sent a new statement, saying the bitcoin investment is indeed Kennedy’s. “I was mistaken in my last communication. Mr. Kennedy does hold a bitcoin investment, but it came later. At the time of the bitcoin speech he had no cryptocurrency holdings,” the representative said.

Before the Kennedy campaign commented, CREW’s Canter said the ownership is certainly current as of June 30, when he filed his disclosure. “Under a traditional conflict of interest analysis, Hines’ financial interests are imputed to him,” Canter said.

“I’m really concerned that he’s speaking at this conference, touting this investment to potential voters while the family has a history of owning bitcoin. It’s like he could do the same thing for Procter and Gamble,” she added. “There’s no difference in my mind from a conflicts perspective.”

After Kennedy’s appearance in May at the Miami conference, CNBC inquired whether Kennedy had any crypto holdings. “Mr. Kennedy has no crypto holdings,” a spokeswoman for the campaign said at the time.

Kennedy said at the conference that if he were to become president he would “make sure that your right to hold and use bitcoin is inviolable.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/07/rfk-jr-bitcoin-investment-raises-ethics-concerns.html

(Regarding Dick, whom I admire and respect (and perhaps I should take this debate to another thread): his limited analysis runs some 1600 words and is actually quite detailed; maybe those whose knowledge of the Kennedy case is limited automatically fail to recognize the significance. Dick closes with, In summary, it is possible from this datebook to piece together many things about the assassination that could be merely educated guesses until now. I believe, presuming the datebook is verified as having been written by Lafitte in 1963, that this constitutes probably the strongest evidence that has ever come to light of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.  I'm trying to understand the logic of your appeal to authority argument that Politico is an intel-agency media operation because Dick said so but your same authority argument can't be applied to the Lafitte datebook.)

41 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/01/rfk-jr-2024-campaign-donors-00124621

RFK Jr.’s donor data reveals his 2024 threat

A POLITICO analysis of his donor base reveals a lot about who is powering this unconventional candidate.

A POLITICO analysis of campaign finance records also shows that Kennedy’s bid has drawn millions of dollars from donors who kept their wallets shut in the last two presidential elections, suggesting he is activating people who have been turned off by what major parties have been offering.

---30---

I suspect this is true. People are washing their hands of the two major parties.  Institutionalized graft and ineffectiveness is not appealing. 

---30---

Politico is regarded as a CIA mouthpiece by JFKA researcher Dick Russell. 

They led this story with this paragraph:

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is collecting checks from past Donald Trump donors at a much higher rate than former Joe Biden contributors, a sign the independent presidential hopeful may pull more from the Republican electorate than Democratic voters."

Op Mock has been painting RFK2 as a vaccine nut, a sexual cad, a white supremacist, a Trump surrogate.  

 

If RFK Jr. hopes to attract moderate Dems, he will need to explain why he's comfortable taking money, nay bit-coin from Patrick Byrne who is infamous for having had a romantic engagement with alleged Russian spy Maria Butina*, Tim Mellon of the Mellon banking/oil dynasty, and numerous other big hitter Libertarians. 

Among the high-dollar, or better said high-bit-coin donors, Byrne — a not yet indicted but likely individual #20 in the list of co-conspirators in the Georgia RICO case — attended the chaotic Oval Office meeting on December 18*; is it possible he's also an indicted but unnamed co-conspirator in Jack Smith's insurrection case against Trump in DC?

 

* NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia Ahead of 2016, New Senate Report Reveals

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-asset-to-russia-ahead-of-2016-new-senate-report-reveals

**Trump’s Georgia case lists 30 unindicted co-conspirators: What we know
 

. . .  pushing the suggestions at the meeting alongside Giuliani and Powell were Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, and Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock.Attorneys for Byrne and Flynn did not return requests for comment.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4157627-trump-georgia-30-unindicted-co-conspirators-what-to-know/



@Benjamin Cole if you have citations to indicate Butina has been exonerated, or that Byrne didn't lie when he claimed the FBI set him up with her, please provide. 

@Benjamin Cole As a side note, help me understand: you consider Politico a CIA mouthpiece because Dick Russell says it is, but you reject the Pierre Lafitte datebook in spite of Dick's limited analysis in support of its authenticity?  

Did Meadows not see this coming?

Ex-Trump White House chief Meadows sued by publisher over bogus election claims

All Seasons Press Argue that they suffered ‘significant monetary and reputational damage’ after Meadows’s grand jury statements contraficted book version of events

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/mark-meadows-donald-trump-book-b2441669.html

continuity of the Coup in Dallas . . . 

Further to MAGA Mike Johnson's election as Speaker of the House, the following soundbite ideological dot-connecting argues that the continuity of the coup in Dallas is in full bloom:

June 24, 2020, Louisiana GOP Representative [now newly elected House Speaker] Mike Johnson tweeted support of Trump's pardon of Gen. Mike Flynn:

Six months earlier, Gen. John K. "Jack" Singlaub — once chair of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL), advisor to Western Goals Foundation which was heavily funded by the sons of Dallas oilman H. L. Hunt, and key player in the illegal Iran-Contra operation in the mid-1980's — had pled with Trump's AG Bill Barr to "free [Gen.] Mike Flynn, drop the charges."

Gen Singlaub had served a long stint as the chair of America's Future, Inc, an extreme right non-profit org. founded in the 1940s under the rubric of "combating communism." Gen. Mike Flynn — recipient of enthusiastic support from now Speaker Mike Johnson — recently assumed chairmanship of America's Future.

A leading figure in the ultra-conservative non-profit in the 1970s and '80s was Phyllis Schlafly, infamous as an outspoken opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment and referred to as the 'First Lady of a Political March to the Right.'

On the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Kennedy in Dallas, Schlafly advanced the lie to her extreme-right following that Lee Oswald was responsible for Kennedy's murder "having been brainwashed by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee to hate Pres. Kennedy'' — a variation on the theme that continues to preoccupy an influential wing of the assassination research community in lieu of pursuing who killed JFK.

Schlafly wrote:
' . . . Only three weeks later, Lee Harvey Oswald shot President John Kennedy. Oswald had lived in the Soviet Union, was permitted to travel freely there, to marry a Russian and take her out of the country. After he returned to the United States, he was brainwashed by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee to hate President Kennedy because Kennedy had forced Khrushchev to remove the Soviet missiles from their Cuban launching pads.'

https://www.phyllisschlafly.com/.../commu.../john-f-kennedy/

Full circle to the America's Future, Schlafly - Singlaub - Flynn and their messianic ideology: Begin Min. 44:45 of Frontline's Michael Flynn's Holy War to appreciate the microcosm of Gen. Flynn's dangerous tactics that mirror prevailing antics of the early '60s of staunch members of the WACL including Generals Edwin Walker, Charles Willoughby, Pedro del Valle — in league with Nazis SS Otto Skorzeny, Hans Ulrich Rudel, Leon Degrelle — in the lead up to the coup in Dallas.
https://www.pbs.org/.../documentary/michael-flynns-holy-war/

6 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Spamming = your incessant posting of the same "someone who worked for this company was nephews with this criminal and was the next door neighbor of this Nazi" fantasies about the Kennedy assassination. Don't flatter yourself either. Hank's investigation is not causing any serious researcher one nanosecond of "discomfort" because it's all based on a mountain of unrelated "connections" and an unverified, unauthenticated "datebook." I'm also not sure why you continue to be allowed to post using something other than your real name.

Let me know when you want to discuss the information presented in the recent comment.

Just now, Jonathan Cohen said:

Nope, more or less nobody. The book, and your incessant spamming about it on this forum, are not taken remotely seriously by the vast majority of assassination researchers.

Spamming?  Please cite incidents of my "spamming."

I think you might ask why Hank's investigation causes some in the research community discomfort. 

@Benjamin Cole asking again, in the specifics: Do you think Lucien Conein's role with Nixon's DEA — having been a 'person of interest' in 1963 — is coincidental? Do you think shadows of the assassination in Dallas can be detected in Iran-Contra vis a vis Carl Jenkins?  

and, will you share your subjective historical cut-off date when considering the impact the assassination of President Kennedy had on democracy?