Leslie Sharp

found this today-- sent to Morley a few years ago... Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli@icloud.com> Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 10:44 AM Joannides & Lafitte in New Orleans, 1963 Over fifteen years ago, while beginning to research a book on the odd death of U.S. Army biochemist, Dr. Frank R. Olson, I became aware of the existence of an enigmatic character with the unlikely name Jean Pierre Lafitte. The origins of my awareness came from my perusal of the 1952 and 1953 diaries of Federal Bureau of Narcotics official George Hunter White; a September 20, 1977 article in the New York Times by investigative journalists John M. Crewdson and Jo Thomas; and the private notes and correspondence of James R. Phelan, an investigative journalist and writer, who, in the 1950s through the 1960s, was quite close to both Lafitte and White. Later, during the year 2000, my knowledge about Lafitte grew considerably greater after I was consulted on Frank Olson’s murder by investigators for New York City District Attorney Robert Morgenthau’s office. Spurred by these meetings, I made about a dozen trips to northern New England and southern Florida to interview several individuals who were close to Pierre Lafitte. About 18 months ago, while researching a forthcoming biography of George Hunter White, these interviews resulted in my gaining access to some of the personal writings of Lafitte, including his private date books, which stylistically are quite similar to those of FBN official and CIA consultant, George White. Suffice it to say, I became intrigued with the life and activities of the man known as Jean Pierre Lafitte, who beginning in 1952, through to about 1978, covertly work for the FBN, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and INS. Lafitte also managed to carry out a number of major, international swindling schemes and operated a number of well-known restaurants. In June 1952, according to a letter by George White, the CIA officially recruited Lafitte as a “special employee” after he was summoned to Washington, D.C. to meet with CIA officials, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and James Jesus Angleton. Wrote White: “Expecting to be at CIA only a day, Lafitte was held over for a few days. I hope to hell they know what they are in for. I suspect even to that crew that he’s one of a kind.” While at CIA headquarters, Lafitte also met Agency Security Chief, Sheffield Edwards, Frank Wisner, and Richard Helms. Subsequently, Lafitte undertook a number of covert domestic and international assignments for the CIA, including a trip to the Republic of the Congo in December 1960, which coincided with the January 1961 CIA-assisted assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Lafitte’s work for the CIA lasted until about 1978. While writing my book on Olson’s murder, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments [Trine Day, 2009], of which Lafitte played an integral and deadly role, I could not avoid learning about a number of provocative connections between Monsieur Lafitte and Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Not the least of these connections was that Lafitte, using an assumed named, throughout the 1960s lived in New Orleans. Indeed, in an incident that caused a flap at CIA headquarters in December 1969, the FBI arrested Lafitte in New Orleans. Briefly detained, he was released after a number of discrete phone calls from Capitol Hill were made to FBI headquarters. At the time of his arrest, Lafitte worked as the head chef at the Plimsoll Club, then part of the International Trade Mart. Portions of Lafitte’s date books for his New Orleans years are revealing of his dealings with various CIA officials, including at least 3 apparent meetings with CIA Western Hemisphere Division employee, George Efythron Joannides. Interestingly, Lafitte’s second encounter with Joannides occurred the second week of August 1963, just days after Lee Harvey Oswald’s Friday, August 9 arrest for provoking a disturbance through leafleting for his Fair Play for Cuba Committee New Orleans chapter. Lafitte’s handwritten notations for Friday, August 16, 1963 read: “… at Antoines room— Martello, Joanides [sic] & Labadie. Quigly [sic] interview Oswald over street demonstration. Call Holdout.” Another notation, made 6 days later reads: “Talk Joanides Cuba—refers to K Organization in Mexico— similar setup now. [D]iscuss with King, ask George and Charles about Havana, Mexico trips…” NOTES: “Antoines room” is thought to be Antoine’s, a well-known New Orleans restaurant that hosted meetings and gatherings in a number of private rooms. There are several references to Antoine’s in the date books. “Martello” appears to be a reference to New Orleans Police Department officer, Lt. Francis L. Martello; not to be confused with Francis “Monk” Martello. Lt. Martello interviewed Oswald in the New Orleans lockup on August 10, 1963. “Quigly” is perhaps a misspelling of the name Quigley. FBI SA John L. Quigley also interviewed Oswald in New Orleans jail. “Labadie” is a known alias, as in Jean Labadie, that Lafitte used often in New York City, but it is also the surname of Stephen J. Labadie, a special agent for the FBI. “Holdout” is unknown; perhaps it is a code-name for a program or confidential informer. “King” is most likely J.C. King, CIA Western Hemisphere director, but could possibly be William Harvey, as some CIA associated people occasionally and mockingly referred to Harvey as “King.” “George and Charlie” are believed to be FBN officials. Copyright © 2013—H.P. Albarelli Jr.

I was just sharing with a friend that I'll be leaving the forum today. It's the last day of Women's History Month, somewhat an auspicious milestone considering the experience. It happens that we plan to publish a facsimile of the Lafitte datebook with a brief narrative per entry so the time spent here will be better applied to that project. As I told the friend, this isn't a fight or flight scenario, nor is it a taking my toys and storming home drama but instead, "I did what I came to do." Someone else suggested that those behind Hank's investigation 100% are "well meaning" and "best intentioned". That's something one might say about a poor performance or a debate gone awry. We will continue to argue the facts revealed in Lafitte's records, not bullets, window sills, not distance from Lee Parkway to the church. The Lafitte datebook and records are fact and represent possibly the most significant breakthrough in decades. As even the team of examiners have noted, authentication can often become a canard. In our case, "I won't take anything seriously Hank uncovered, regardless of the revelations, because I haven't seen a document saying I can trust the datebook." A red herring? We also discussed what will likely happen when the datebook is authenticated. We predict the authenticator will then be vilified for at least a year by an element within this community. The examiner working on the db said to me, be prepared because whoever "loses" will cry foul no matter what. It's a racket. Hank knew it was a racket, I've learned it's a racket, and I suspect some of these people including you, Greg, know it's a racket. I'll close out with explaining, again, that the du Berrier entry in the datebook is three days before the shots at the Walker house ... the theme of this thread. I guess the fact fails to prompt the slightest curiosity in you? It's always been my understanding that curiosity is a prerequisite for a committed investigative journalist.

@Greg Doudna @Tom Gram Delving into the Ed Forum 'way back machine,' the following is a solid foundation from which to resume the question of Surrey's motives. Sounds very interesting, Corey. As for Walker and Surrey -- they were early critics of the Warren Commission ("Impeach Earl Warren!") and they also provided the original Conspiracy Theory -- namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for a Communist Conspiracy. It was astounding to Walker and Surrey, IMHO, that J. Edgar Hoover devised the "Lone Nut" theory before 11/22/1963 was over -- and nobody in the Mass Media wanted to hear anything but this FBI doctrine anymore. Hoover's "Lone Nut" doctrine spelled FAILURE for Walker and Surrey, who had hoped that the JFK murder would result in the invasion of Cuba and the toppling of Fidel Castro. So, Walker and Surrey gathered all the newspaper data they could from the week of the JFK murder to try to make their case again -- that the COMMUNISTS really killed JFK. They failed again. Their book was not a best-seller as they hoped -- and the most publicity it ever received was from the Warren Commission. Regards, --Paul Trejo Well, Steve, it appears you have arrived at about the same conclusion as Dr. Jeff Caufield in his recent book, "General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy" (2015). For Caufield, too, a 'false flag event' had been plotted with the intent of sparking an invasion of Cuba and the assassination of Fidel Castro. If the Radical Right (led by General Walker) had been successful, then Cuba would have been Capitalist again by 1964. However -- as history turned out -- the entire Red Plot theory, of which Oswald was at the center -- fell on its face when J. Edgar Hoover proposed the Lone Nut theory to LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren -- and they accepted it. We have FBI evidence that Hoover announced his Lone Nut theory as early as 3pm on 11/22/1963, in records of his telephone calls with RFK. Dallas officials were pushing the idea of a Red Plot with Oswald at the center in the FPCC and the CPUSA -- however, J. Edgar Hoover had a fat file on Oswald in New Orleans, showing that Oswald was really working in a bogus FPCC run by Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street. Also, J. Edgar Hoover had complete files on every Red in the USA -- and Oswald's name wasn't on that list. So, Hoover called RFK at about 3pm to report that Oswald was (1) not officially in the FPCC; and (2) not officially a Red. In my reading of Caufield's new book, J. Edgar Hoover figured out General Walker's Red Plot theory of the JFK assassination within 2.5 hours. Why risk WW3 over General Walker? That was the issue of the day -- and LBJ sided with Hoover. The result was a Lone Nut theory that was promoted by the USA as Unquestionable Dogma (in the interest of National Security). It is still effective today, as many Journalists continue to repeat the myth that Oswald was a Red. We apparently agree that before 4pm on 11/22/1963, the Red Plot theory of General Walker had fizzled out. This tells us more about the genius of J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI files than about the folly of General Walker. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Greg, if you're reading my post carefully, I have repeatedly emphasized that the datebook, and the Walker shooting, are symbiotic so in my opinion, there is no reason to move this conversation. If Jim di prefers that we do, I'm amenable; otherwise, I hope you will stop suggesting that the questions are distinct from one another. Walker and Datebook. I haven't yet added the rest of Lafitte's entries that implicate Walker fully in the Skorzeny plot. It's precisely because of those entries I asked why you had never pursued the motivation of No. 1 and brother to take a shot at Walker? And you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22. Du Berrier is in the Lafitte datebook just days before the shot at Walker in Dallas in April. If you're pursuing the investigation in good faith, I ask that you set aside your somewhat knee-jerk assessment of Hank's investigation and consider the aforementioned. And I hope you will reconsider reading the book you attacked eight days after it was published. I think that was unconscionable, regardless of who authored the book.

Quickly, to put this to bed once and for all, I have a written testimonial from the executive (just starting out in his father and uncle's business in 1963) in charge of the 1962 Christmas / New Year annual promotion launched by their New England-based, national food distributorship Sweet Life Foods. He confirms that the datebook was printed for the purpose of gifting the company's favored clients, most of whom were chefs. Although he was too young at the time to have traveled to personally hand out the datebooks, his uncle — approaching his mid-90s — didn't remember Pierre Lafitte by name or photo, but said it was likely Pierre [Jean Martin?] picked up the blank 1963 datebook either in the restaurant in up state NY or at a food expo held in New Orleans. The instrument itself has been authenticated.

Thanks, Tom. There's no reason for you to be aware of the "water under the bridge" (which is by now DEEP GREEN $$$$) related to authentication. Assuming you haven't read Coup, I'll provide a brief summary momentarily. (and I trust you realize that Hank, and (on his behalf), I have turned stones you haven't thought of.) Before I do, I think it's only fair that in addition to your opinion of how we should proceed, you would address the issues raised in my response to Greg Doudna related to the Walker shooter and the Lafitte datebook entry that confirms the current working hypothesis. Would you be willing to do that before I recap what is in print in Coup related to the provenance and authentication — in Hank's own words, not mine?

I hope the host of this thread will indulge a lengthy response to Greg. It's related to the Walker shooting although that's not fully evident until the end. Greg, in your November 24, 2021 critique of my statement on the provenance and authenticity of the 1963 datebook maintained by the enigmatic Pierre Lafitte, colleague and friend to George Hunter-White of the FBN and CI James Angleton, which you posted just eight days after the publication of the 700++ page book Coup in Dallas, you wrote, To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is. Based on that--the significance of its contents if true--Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged. (The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content, therefore it is genuine.) Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity. My reaction is it sounds too good to be true. This warrants renewed dissection in light of the renewed interest in the Walker incident on April 10. GD. To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is. That is simply not true, and your remark is the equivalent of Bill Barr’s misrepresentation of the findings presented in the Mueller Report. As we know, Barr launched a campaign to mislead Americans which fueled distrust of government. Similarly, your twist of the facts may have misled some forum members and fueled distrust of Hank’s investigation. Can you tell me if you read Coup cover to cover prior to posting your critique? For the record, Dick Russell made clear that because much of the information in the datebook corroborates what he had uncovered in the process of writing The Man Who Knew Too Much, he had reason to believe the datebook is authentic, pending professional authentication. His caveat is to be respected … that because he was not the investigator who gained access to the datebook, nor had he seen the physical instrument, he could not personally attest to authentication. Simple, succinct, logical. Had you read carefully, Dick also underscored that certain detail in the Lafitte record from 1963 was not known publicly prior to the mid-to-late ‘70s. I hope you will give that serious thought. GD. Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged. You repeat your subtle attempt to erode general faith in Dick’s expertise. And again, you fail to acknowledge that Dick quite deliberately assigned a caveat to his limited analysis of the datebook, as he should have under the unique circumstances. He also indicates that based on his considerable knowledge of the investigation, which I venture surpasses your own in most areas, this [datebook] is a crucial piece of evidence for the reasons stated. GD. The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content . . . A ludicrous assessment, Greg, and another insult to Dick. He did not suggest he found the entries in the datebook to be “interesting” [a word search of Dick’s contributions to Coup does not produce the word “interesting.” Yet another example of your editorializing couched as fact.] Once again, Dick observed that certain entries — which he enumerated, btw — contain detail that wouldn’t appear in the public domain for another twelve to fifteen years. GD. Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's. Are you quite certain that is my wording? Did I not stress that my reasons for trusting the authenticity and provenance were unique? G. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity. Allen Kent, coauthor and trusted colleague of Hank Albarelli since 2013, had no reason to address provenance and authenticity in his contributions to the book, nor did Charles Drago — another of Hank’s trusted confidants, or @Anthony Thorne who I invited to the project to represent the continuity of the Coup in Dallas with his essay. I believe if you emailed any one of these gentlemen, they would readily supply you with reasons they chose to add their names to Hank’s effort. GD/ My reaction is it sounds too good to be true. Which leads me to your most recent exposé related to the Walker shooting. “There is no other candidate for Coleman's No. 1 to my knowledge. In favor of Bob Schmidt as No. 1 is the plausibility of vet Bob Schmidt known to be in Dallas and in Robert Surrey/Walker circles in early 1963 via his brother Larrie, possible need for money (reflected in the Larrie Schmidt letters), and there is the decades-later hearsay claim.” In other words, Greg, you applied deductive reasoning? It seems you reject the process when it's employed by other investigative journalists. You then write, “And then the long narrow face.” And here you venture into facial recognition which is hardly a science unless one uses professional instruments. Presumably you have access to said instruments and ran an analysis on that “long narrow face”? OR, are you asking us to go along with your speculation simply because it’s yours? An appeal to authority —because you’ve studied the Dead Sea Scrolls? You continue, “When I saw the long narrow face I said to myself, "Self, I think this may be a match." Anyway that's my best guess at identity of No. 1. Robert L. Schmidt seems to check most of the boxes as at least possible for No. 1--if this isn't a false positive.” Apparently you’ve drawn a fairly subjective conclusion, based on the trajectory of your pursuit of No. 1. It happens to be plausible imo, and you provide us with a step by step of how you arrived at your guess, but to assert it is “scholarly” is a stretch imv. I think more accurately, it is an impressive bit of gumshoe detective work. So, with all respect warranted, on the heels of your publication and in spite of your self-acknowledged guess at the identity of No. 1, esteemed journalist Jefferson Morley recently opined, The breakthrough came on March 11, when Greg Doudna, a JFK researcher from Bellingham, Washington, posted a 79-page paper about the Walker incident on his Web site, scrollery.com. The story is corroborated and fleshed out by the research of Gayle Nix Jackson, the granddaughter of Orville Nix, a bystander on November 22 who filmed JFK’s assassination.” He continues, I have only recently made Doudna’s acquaintance but the quality of his scholarship is obvious to anyone who reviews it. Want to know about the Dead Sea scrolls? Doudna is your dude. I must ask whether In the instance of this recent limited post of yours on EF, you’re entirely comfortable with his reference to the overall quality of scholarship when you close with “it’s a guess” (paraphrasing). I see no reference to this guess in the article. I do see that he invoked Gayle Nix Jackson, who I highly respect fwiw, but can she corroborate your findings any more credibly than Dick Russell — who favorably analyzed the Lafitte datebook (with caveat), corroborating Hank’s primary source material to the extent he was willing to put his reputation on the line? For this reason, I recently joined with Jim di Eugenio to ask, “why now”? I hope you can stay with me on this . . . As Jeff is aware having been invited by me to peruse first-hand the Lafitte datebook — and as highlighted by Dick Russell in his limited analysis — one of the most significant entries in the Lafitte book dated April 7 — three days before the shots were fired at the Walker residence in Dallas — reads, Walker — Lee and pictures. Planned soon — can he do it? Won’t. Dick writes, · The name of WALKER appears more than once, initially concerning the shooting attempt on his life that Oswald was later accused of. “April 7 – Walker – Lee and pictures. Planned soon – can he do it? Won’t.” (it’s possible that the word is ‘Wait.’) The indication is, someone was setting up Oswald to do this, but he didn’t want to. The shot was fired at Walker on April 10. Later references indicate that General Walker was in fact aware of, if not in on, the plot to kill JFK. Admittedly, I continue to harbor frustration that in 2013, Hank provided Jeff with details of two entries in the Lafitte datebook — August 16 and August 21 that reference Joannides; one references a meeting at Antoine’s in New Orleans; one identifies Martello and Quiqley as well as Labadie (I assume you know the significance of all of these names); Hunter-White; Siragusa; and [J.C.] King; however, for reasons known to Jeff and Hank, Jeff failed to pursue the Joannides lead Hank handed him on a platter. I believe the current working theory is that the last batch of withheld documents will include proof that Joannides initiated an operation in NOLA that involved Oswald three months before the assassination ... late August. Surely you grasp the significance, and why it might be concerning that Hank's source material, shared with Jeff in 2013, may well serve to confirm those documents. And please consider that if the documents have been locked away for 60 years, how could Lafitte have known about Joannides in New Orleans at Antoines discussing Oswald? And, according to Lafitte, Wm. King Harvey, Joseph Silverthorne, and Santo Trafficante showed up in NOLA just days prior to the first Joannides entry? To conclude, I hope you can appreciate that it’s mildly concerning that Jeff meets you and within a few weeks, designates your guesswork which included amateur facial recognition to be scholarly, while you both remain skeptical of Hank’s primary source material that — and herein lies the confusion caused by a refusal to apply logic — actually supports the current hypothesis that the Walker shooting was staged. Isn't it far more logical to maintain an open mind instead of jumping to, that datebook is just “too good to be true”? I’m perfectly willing to indulge your guesswork because “logic” suggests that facts are converging to indicate we're all pursuing significant evidence the Walker shooting was indeed staged, and Oswald was somehow involved.

I had spent months researching the Robert S. Lovett dynasty of Huntsville, Texas (Union Pacific RR) in context of the Houston-based law firm Baker, Botts which was founded by the father of GHWB's Sec State James Baker. Robert S. Lovett's son Robert A. was the Yale roommate of John J. McCloy (of the WC), a partner in Brown Bros. Harriman (whose primary account was Union Pacific) and almost exclusively selected Kennedy's cabinet. Huntsville was also home of an infamous juvenile detention center and a state prison, the former often invoked by parents to scare their rowdy teenage boys, "I'll send you to Hunstville if you don't shape up". I believe Buell may have spent a brief period at Hunstville detention. Ultimately, as simplistic as it might seem, it was Buell's sister, Linnie Randle who orchestrated Lee's hiring at the Texas School Book Depository building resulting in his presence there on Friday, November 22. Make of it what you will. I dismissed the coincidences until the incident in Austin related to a conversation her husband had with the receptionist surfaced. My interest was renewed, but I've not taken the line of inquiry far enough along to share publicly.

Are you not aware that a large element within the community insists Oswald was never in Mexico City? I believe Shasteen said something like, "I don't care what you believe, I stand by my statements." Surely Gil will erect guardrails if we venture too far off topic. I would posit that your lengthy and somewhat impassioned defense of Ruth has little to do with the garage.

You write, (assuming Russell accurately reported the Angers interview). yet you then quote Dick, One of the most surprising postscripts of the Angers story is that Dick Russell then went to General Walker with that story and asked Walker for his reaction. Russell was stunned when Walker told him, Russell, that "several people" had "raised that possibility" to him, Walker, already, and that it was "natural to suspect" that. Do you also only assume that Dick has accurately reported what Walker told him. This actually has everything to do with Coup in Dallas, Greg, in light of your analysis of my subjective analysis which you posted on this forum just eight days after Coup was published in November 2021, a remarkable feat as has been noted by a number of researchers who have studied Hank's investigations for years. It took many of them weeks to absorb the content of Coup. I've wondered if you had read the book cover to cover before your critique? I've also wondered why you chose to attack my candid analysis rather than read and challenge Hank's introduction which lays out in detail the provenance of the Lafitte material and the reason why he was 100% certain it was authentic?

And in that letter, Lee divulges he had been in MC. Do you recall whether Ruth was asked about the MC trip, a controversy among researchers and journalists that has spanned decades? Did she publicly confirm Lee had been in MC within a few days of the assassination? Re. SA Odum. Ruth refers to him as "Hart". If she only knew him through Michael and never actually met him until after the assassination, wouldn't she have called him "Bob" during testimony? You're probably familiar with barber Shasteen's story that he cut Oswald's hair, and that Odum frequented the same barber shop.

Thank you, Paul. Hank pursued the leads as they surfaced, and it happens they led us to an international angle of the assassination which is revealed in Lafitte's records. I trust it's obvious to the reader that Hank's investigation was a professional journalistic endeavor to get to the truth and transcends having good intentions.

Greg, I'm glad you emphasize Dick Russell's accounts as being substantive because it provides an opportunity for me to emphasize that Dick provided a "limited analysis" of the Pierre Lafitte datebook for both a film company in Australia and our publisher, Skyhorse, which no doubt you recall from reading Coup in Dallas cover to cover. Dick writes, 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. (emphasis added) · The name of WALKER appears more than once, initially concerning the shooting attempt on his life that Oswald was later accused of. “April 7 – Walker – Lee and pictures. Planned soon – can he do it? Won’t.” (it’s possible that the word is ‘Wait.’) The indication is, someone was setting up Oswald to do this, but he didn’t want to. The shot was fired at Walker on April 10. Later references indicate that General Walker was in fact aware of, if not in on, the plot to kill JFK:

I tend to agree, Chris. He will have my vote should he decide to challenge Joe Biden. We need another generation of rational Democrats to take up the mantle. No doubt this will be controversial, and likely inconsequential for most, but I would like to understand his wife's suicide more than I currently do. I believe Trump will be an attack dog should he and RFK Jr. end up in a race to the finish. There is so much irony in this, considering how we close Coup in Dallas.

Is there a chance that this indictment will open the floodgates? Excerpt, Coup in Dallas Conclusions During lengthy debates over the rise of the alternative right being led by Donald Trump, the possibility of authoritarianism similar to pre-World War II was a logical extension of our research into a similarly volatile period of the early 1960s. The question arose: why, unlike the 1960s when leading conservatives like William Buckley disavowed fringe elements—especially the John Birch movement—had leaders of the GOP in 2016-2018 failed to intercede before another, stronger fringe element could split the country, perhaps irrevocably this time? The question was perplexing to say the least. The possibility of extreme pressure on key players was an obvious answer, and that possibility led naturally to the question of the ultimate pressure, blackmail. In light of the many national scandals that dominated the nation’s news cycles during the campaign of 2016, in the context of political blackmail, one in particular warranted attention. A sensational child sex trafficking case had been exposed in Florida in 2005 with New York financial investor and sybarite, Jeffrey Epstein, at the center. Suspicion that the cameras and film equipment scattered throughout his various enclaves were focused as much on his high powered guests, including political leaders and influencers, as his underage victims, the possibility of tried and true blackmail could not be easily set aside. Had Epstein perfected the playbook developed over the decades by fascist regimes and employed by Americans like Kohlberg, Hoover, Cohn, Gray, and GOP consultant and “dirty trickster” Roger Stone? And if so, on whose behalf? In future, researchers and reporters will discover, or disavow, this speculation in the months and years to come.

I've already received a what-about LBJ. Doubt we'll hear a what-about JFK's sexual peccadilloes.

Agree, W., as we should. I find poetic justice that the Stormy Daniels case resulted in Trump's first indictment, issued just under the wire of Women's History Month. Now, Thomas, Powell, Conway, Ms Ivanka, et al. must take responsibility for not only their support of this supreme misogynist, but their own complicity in setting back decades of progress toward equal rights for women.

"WE DID IT Y'ALL. TEXAS OBSERVER WILL REMAIN OPEN!" It seems only fitting!!! https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-observer-no-layoffs-remains-open-board-vote/

Where's the Party for Lady Justice?!!!

holy flyin' Flip!!!

I'm certain Michael Paine acknowledged he knew SA FBI Bardwell Odum prior to the assassination, and referred to him by the nickname "Bob." I've yet to pinpoint Ruth's reference to the same FBI agent in her lengthy testimony so that I can quote her directly, but she refers to him as "Hart" and implies they were on friendly terms. So, I suggest she may be mistaken that Hosty was the first FBI agent she had met. I'm open to the possibility she met FBI agent Odum post November 1, so in that regard she may be technically accurate that Hosty was her first, but can we be certain she hadn't met "Hart" previously? Could she have met him through Michael? Did Bob and Michael meet before or after Ruth met Hosty on the 1st? If either is the case, doesn't that open another proverbial can of worms. On November 7, 8 ,9, Ruth and Michael read the letter Oswald had typed on her typewriter to discover that he had been in MC with a reference to the Russian Embassy. Might she have considered a discreet phone call to Hosty whom she had met on November 1? Or perhaps a call to her friend "Hart." Why didn't Michael touch base with "Bob"? Wasn't Hosty in touch with New Orleans at some point following the August arrest of Lee? Did he not ask, or at minimum advise Ruth of the incident in NOLA when he first met her on November 1, or did FBI Hosty only learn of the arrest following his visit with Ruth on November 1? The aforementioned suggests to me that Ruth has been interviewed over the years by researchers who may well be sympathetic to her?

I agree, Paul. His initial foray was prompted by the question of autism. Our publisher, Skyhorse, shared the concerns and launched his latest book on the issue. Our editor was tasked with editing Coup simultaneously with The Real Anthony Fauci .. an irony lost on none of us. The books share a pub birthday, Nov 16, 2021. It's my understanding that Jr. moved from autism specifically to the general issue that vaccines have not been regulated for decades — rush to profit has trumped safety. (pun intended.)

Re. Trump's voice .. in the ear of the beholder. Practically speaking, a campaign could do great damage to RFK Jr., but to imply he should shy from running because of his voice seems "off" somehow. Jr.'s outspoken defense of our environment should get him elected, but alas we know there are millions in the US who deny the global crisis. {1 gal. of clean water = $2.79 in many NM stores.) His recognition that vaccines are a necessary evil around the world could balance the insanity of the anti-vax movement. It's unfortunate he's associated with those extremists.

Greg, Have you developed this to include your hypothesis to explain Surrey's staging of the event? Have you pursued his history yet?

And you'll provide me evidence he was in prison on November 22? We know that he wasn't in mid-November. Can you tell me who served as camp director of île de Ré in November?