factual error.

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Where does the Ruby quote come from? Don’t recall seeing it before

I'll check.

I'm especially interested in your perspective on Sundberg's emails. 

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Sounds authoritative enough. He mentions twice that these two were not on the flight with Souetre to Mexico City on Nov 12, 1963. So - was Souetre on that flight? Is he simply saying that Souetre wasn’t in prison so he doesn’t know where he was then?

Silverthorne was in Paris off and on in 1963. 
We're in pursuit of leads that could establish how this unfolded, i.e., WK Harvey, DFS Mexico, Interpol, INS ...

DeSantis Finds His Voice: A NatCon Culture Warrior Who Praised a Prominent White Nationalist

16 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Ok, as a courtesy I will respond. 

Regarding the Russiagate Hoax, try this. It is 24,000 words from Columbia Journalism Review:

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

I have cited the four-part series as one explanation, among many, of the dubious origins of, and quality of, the Russiagate investigations and TV show. I have cited this series to you before, as a worthy read. 

I understand you may disagree with the authors of the CJR piece (considered a liberal-left East Coast publication). 

That's fine. But surely (if you actually read the length CJR article) you must concede that the Russiagate Hoax topic is debatable, and reasonable people can disagree if it was a hoax or not. 

You contend there was substance in the Mueller Report. I contend it was largely conjecture--as in the words of FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok, "There is no big there there."

We differ. 

Later, I will cite reasons that the "Russian social media campaign" was largely make-believe as well.  Read up on the Hamilton 68 project, as covered by Matt Taibbi. 

Again, if you have different views than me, that is fine.

But to insist I have not explained my views is not correct.

Nor are your views any more, or any less "factual" than mine, or those of the Columbia Journalism Review, or Matt Taibbi. 

On top of all that, the truth has a way of leaking out over decades. 

Carter's October surprise, or the JFKA case. And what really happened at the CIA-infested Watergate burglary job? 

Don't be too sure of what is fact, or smoke and mirrors. 

Keep an open mind. 

I will try not to be tiresome.

 

Ben, I tried.  I read Gerth's piece which I think we agree is more about media coverage than the Mueller investigation itself.  A word search of parts 1 and 2 for the term, Mueller Report comes up empty. I was hoping we could deliberate the facts, not views.

 The facts of the investigation as presented in the Mueller Report ...

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity

The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.

Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.

A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016 

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]

Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]

Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton” 

In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5]Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.

Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]

Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]

The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.

The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct 

The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President[10] and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.[11]

The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.

Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:

In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice;[12] months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue – all of which McGahn refused to do.[13]

After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go;” he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true.[14]

In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”[15]

In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.”[16]

The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort*, and an unnamed person with law enforcement.[17]

*After the fall of Nixon, [Roger] Stone pursued a Rasputin-esque political career and formed a consultancy firm with Republican lobbyist Paul Manafort whose credentials would later earn him a brief role as campaign chairman for presidential candidate Donald Trump, a stint that implicated him enough to be among the suspects of the Russian collusion allegations that roiled the 2016 US elections. Manafort was indicted in October 2017 on charges of mortgage fraud, conspiracy, and falsifying bank records; he was tried, convicted and sentenced to seven-plus years. Before leaving office, President Trump pardoned Paul Manafort.

 In 1980, Stone and Manafort’s firm had gotten behind the presidential candidacy of California Governor Ronald Reagan. When Stone was provided a Rolodex of New York supporters of the governor, the only name he considered of value was Roy Cohn. A decade later, Stone joined the presidential campaign of Arlen Specter who is known by assassination researchers as having invented the “magic bullet” theory that persuaded the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin of President Kennedy. 

16 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I also support the reinstatement  of Robert Montenegto to this forum. 

Hear, Hear!

DA Bragg receives death threat letter with suspicious white powder.

https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-receives-threatening-letter-with-white-powder-166764101927

@Steve Thomas

Re: Some pertinent notes from the Jeanneney 2016 book Un Attentat - Petit-Clamart - 22 Aout 1962

I received an email with this subject heading about an hour ago. As the author of the email mentions you by name, and is apparently following our discussion, I thought I would share the relevant paragraph..

Fyi, in the event you aren't familiar with him personally, I think Jeffrey Sundberg teaches engineering at the University of Arizona as evidenced in his university-related email address.

. . . As [Lajos] Marton still lives - at least he did when I checked a few months ago, when Steve Thomas began participating in the Souetre thread on the EF - and might be more than happy to gain a lucrative financial settlement for being quite inaccurately named as a principal in the JFKA, I cautioned my correspondents - most of them are cc'd above - and admonished them to try to keep this information away from the attention of a lawyer or even the public in general.  I do see that the information about the imprisonment of both Marton and Varga has in the past few hours made its way to the public Ed Forum.  Whether this has developed a momentum of its own, I don't know, but I do urge you to consider not pursuing this further, lest Marton, or a lawyer willing to file suit in court on his behalf, catches wind of the contents of CiD.

Given the substantive blunder on Marton and Varga's purported arrival with Souetre in Mexico City in mid-November 1963, one wonders what other information in CiD stems from the same dodgy informant. . . .

I wonder if you have any thoughts?

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Leslie,

I don't know the exact date. The photographer didn't date them; but you've seen pictures of the prison, you've seen pictures of the men in the prison. You know when they went in and when they came out.

As far as sosmeone feeding Fensterwald false information, I've told you about Gilbert Lecavalier.

Steve Thomas

Is there evidence that Lecavalier had reason to feed Fensterwald false information? In what capacity?

I'll get back to you related to dates of the photos.

10 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

They wore street clothes.

Here's another one:

Les 3 Hongrois
de l'attentat du Petit-Clamart
----
Gijola SARI
Lajos MARTON
Laszlo VARGA.

Go here and look at pictures of the interior of Re:. They're standing up on the second or third floor of the catwalk.

https://deltas-collines.org/galerie/COURSIVES

Steve Thomas

 

Are you arguing that one of de Gaulle's anti-OAS guys planted the story? Are you thinking Michel Mertz is the prime candidate for said misinformation?

9 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

They wore street clothes.

Here's another one:

Les 3 Hongrois
de l'attentat du Petit-Clamart
----
Gijola SARI
Lajos MARTON
Laszlo VARGA.

Go here and look at pictures of the interior of Re:. They're standing up on the second or third floor of the catwalk.

https://deltas-collines.org/galerie/COURSIVES

Steve Thomas

 

Date?
I'll accept the gear.

1 minute ago, Steve Thomas said:

How's this one? That's a guard tower in the background. btw.

Lazlo VARGA
Lajos MARTON
Jean-Marc ROUVIERE
lors d'un barbecue

Steve Thomas

I've seen it.  Caption or date?  Prison attire?

At the risk of theorizing, and surely if one is to do so, this is the forum for it —

Was Trump involved in MKUltra?  Not as victim, but trained in the art of messaging, for example, triggering former military personnel to act?

Stand Back and Stand By

We're gonna march and fight like hell

Death and Destruction

MK victims respond to "suggestion". 

1 minute ago, Steve Thomas said:

Leslie,

Those are all pictures taken from inside the prison at Satint Martin de Re, sometime between 1963 and 1968.

You can go here, and search by name:

https://deltas-collines.org/galerie/COMBATTANTS

The entries under Laszlo Varga have the mosts shots of Varga, Marton and Sari.

Steve Thomas

But you don't have photos of Marton and/or Varga in prison?

Any chance you have signed affidavits of witnesses who knew them while in prison, or maybe prison officials that can attest to their incarceration?  I'm asking because thus far, I've only see the links provided here that list them.  Are you fully satisfied with "a list"?

6 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Leslie,

1) Consider the source. SAC really?

2) Laszlo Varga couldn't have gone to thr Caribbean in the April-May, 1963 time frame. He was in prison.

3) Did Hunt ever say he ever met with Souetre? Did Souetre ever say he ever met with Hunt?

4) Lejos Marton could not have gone to Mexico on November 12, 1963. Tried in absentia in January of 1963, he had been arrested in September of that year. Varga was already in prison.

Steve Thomas

 

Are you arguing that one of de Gaulle's anti-OAS guys planted the story? Are you thinking Michel Mertz is the prime candidate for said misinformation?

4 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Gyula Sari

Appreared before the Court of Military Justice on June 24, 1963 and was sentenced to 20 years in prison on June 26, 1963.

Sari et Bernier le 24 juin à la Cour militaire de justice

https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1963/06/14/sari-et-bernier-le-24-juin-a-la-cour-militaire-de-justice_2230470_1819218.html

Recherche Article réservé aux abonnés La cour militaire de justice va se réunir encore le 24 juin au Fort-Neuf de Vincennes, sous la présidence du général Gardet, pour juger deux des auteurs de l'attentat du Petit-Clamart, le Hongrois Gyula Sari et S

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

He was sentenced 0n June 26, 1963 to 20 years in prison.

I think you, or another ed forum member recently reposted a fairly obscure photo alleged to be shot inside a prison environment. Memory serves, men in the photo are relevant to this discussion?  Does anyone have the date stamp or the caption of the photo?

22 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

This is downright dangerous.

- Donald Trump -

EVERYBODY KNOWS I'M 100% INNOCENT, INCLUDING BRAGG," he said about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, according to The Washington Post. "BUT HE DOESN'T CARE. HE IS JUST CARRYING OUT THE PLANS OF THE RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS. OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED, AS THEY TELL US TO BE PEACEFUL!"

To make sure his MAGA minions understood the semi-coded message, he later posted a photo of himself holding a baseball bat like a weapon, alongside a photo of Attorney Bragg looking nervous with his hands up.

https://twitter.com/patriottakes

Trump is going to keep pushing until this country explodes.

Steve Thomas

A former president posting a photo suggestive of violence against a DA prosecuting his case isn't worth a headline?

At 2 PM Eastern, this is Fox News' single Trump headline for the day, which btw is buried in the third tier of their online front page.  

Let's see if Tucker, Sean, or Laura pick up the story this evening.

Or, are they hamstrung because they lied about the Big Lie, lied and continue to lie about Jan 6, and lied and continue to lie about Trump's ongoing attempted Coup.

So, we're to trust that Carlson had honorable motives to get on board the JFK Records Act, because he and his colleagues at Fox News are standard bearers of timely, accurate journalism?
 

Is Carlson the voice we want associated with the legal battle for the last batch of Kennedy assassination files, when he had his chance back in 2017 but chose to abdicate responsibility because MAGA might revolt?  Deep State indeed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/would-trump-indictment-help-hurt-former-presidents-2024-bid-win-back-white-house

 

Would Trump indictment help or hurt former president’s 2024 bid to win back White House?

Trump predicted earlier this month that indictment ‘probably will enhance my numbers’

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Ok, as a courtesy I will respond. 

Regarding the Russiagate Hoax, try this. It is 24,000 words from Columbia Journalism Review:

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

I have cited the four-part series as one explanation, among many, of the dubious origins of, and quality of, the Russiagate investigations and TV show. I have cited this series to you before, as a worthy read. 

I understand you may disagree with the authors of the CJR piece (considered a liberal-left East Coast publication). 

That's fine. But surely (if you actually read the length CJR article) you must concede that the Russiagate Hoax topic is debatable, and reasonable people can disagree if it was a hoax or not. 

You contend there was substance in the Mueller Report. I contend it was largely conjecture--as in the words of FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok, "There is no big there there."

We differ. 

Later, I will cite reasons that the "Russian social media campaign" was largely make-believe as well.  Read up on the Hamilton 68 project, as covered by Matt Taibbi. 

Again, if you have different views than me, that is fine.

But to insist I have not explained my views is not correct.

Nor are your views any more, or any less "factual" than mine, or those of the Columbia Journalism Review, or Matt Taibbi. 

On top of all that, the truth has a way of leaking out over decades. 

Carter's October surprise, or the JFKA case. And what really happened at the CIA-infested Watergate burglary job? 

Don't be too sure of what is fact, or smoke and mirrors. 

Keep an open mind. 

I will try not to be tiresome.

 

Now this is a response worthy consideration.  Let me 'chew' on it, read the Columbia version of events and get back with you.  Thanks.

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, I will let you have final say. I have said my part. 

I hope you keep contributing to the EF-JFK, as do others with your views, or those with polar opposite views. 

A non-responsive response to facts.  Tiresome.

13 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

Blame it on the National Socialist's and the French? Why the continued cover up if the CIA and Fed Govt skirts are clean?

Is symbiosis on an international scale out of the question?

24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We see the facts differently. 

In a nutshell, the debunked Russiagate Hoax, the debunked Russian-social-media farrago, then the Mueller Report, leading to the Donk impeachment of Trump---clearly there was an attempt to remove Trump for office, and not through the ballot box. 

Did Trump have a plan for Pence to somehow nullify results from certain states? It seems so (rather weak and half-baked, as Trump had zero backing in institutional DC, or from the intel-state). 

One reality does not foreclose the other reality. There can be Deep State regime-change ops against Trump, and also a Trump plan to have Pence nullify results from certain states.

We are worlds apart in views, and what we think are facts. 

But I welcome your participation in EF-JFK, and I do not disparage your views of facts. 

Your views are just not my views. 

That is why it is called a forum. 

As a courtesy statement, I am not ignoring any comments, but I myself will forego further comments on this thread. 

 

Trump plan to have Pence nullify results from certain states. . . . 
OR BE HUNG.

We might have been able to engage in constructive debate if instead of pushing out soundbites in your comments, you would cite the sources that cause you to refer to the Russia investigation as "the Russia-hoax," and reveal who influences your interpretation of the Mueller Report. 

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct

Stark Constrsts Between the Mueller Report and Attorney Barr's Summary

Special Counsel Report: The report makes the statement: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” It further states, “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Election, Vol. 2, page 2 (March 2019) (“Special Counsel Report”))

Barr Statements: The Attorney General omitted the Special Counsel office’s allusion to their lack of confidence in exonerating evidence as well as repeated findings that there was substantial evidence supporting the key elements of obstruction. Instead, Barr offered his own conclusions about the obstruction case against the president, stating, “I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” (Letter from Attorney General Bill Barr to House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, p. 3 (March 24, 2019) (the “Barr Letter”))

read the full analysis here. https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/stark-contrasts-between-the-mueller-report-and-attorney-general-barrs-summary/

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That's your view, and I welcome your input. 

I contend a President can be a bad actor---witness Nixon, or in the eyes of many, Trump---and still be the target of intel-state generated regime-change ops. 

There was, in fact, a try at removing Trump from office not through the election box---the 2019 impeachment, the very same process that Nixon faced. But Nixon (and I am no Nixon fan) resigned first. 

Carter was also voted out of office, in a democratic election (and I am the rare Carter fan---the last honest US President, IMHO). That doesn't negate that intel-state operatives (this time, a weaponized 'Phant party) torpedoed Carter. 

Keep an open mind, as I will towards your presentations.

My arguments are not about the relative merits of the four presidents---they are what the shadow government did to those four presidents. (In fact, endless arguments about the merits of the four presidents should be confined to the proper threads).

The media was largely complicit in all four regime change ops....

 

Trump was impeached for soliciting foreign interference in a presidential election, and for inciting an insurrection. Are you arguing that the charges were trumped up by the intel-state, comprised of many of his own appointees at the time? 

The "shadow government" you refer to did not cause Trump to solicit foreign interference, nor did it force him to incite an insurrection. Were you to posit that elements of the corporate state, a.k.a the fascist state in our country might have manipulated him, I would seriously consider the argument. Trump self-imploded. He didn't need any help from "the deep state."

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

Fascinating insights. 

I can't imagine anything in the JFK files could damage national security or relations with European allies that much, and even it it did, the truth should come out. Let the chips fall where they may. 

 

BTW, the NSA spied on Merkel and others for decades, and this was recently.

U.S. spy agency tapped German chancellery for decades

https://www.reuters.com › article › us-germany-usa-sp...

 

 

Jul 9, 2015 — The U.S. National Security Agency tapped phone calls involving German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her closest advisers for years and spied ...

 

---30---

 

The Germans got over it.

 

60-year-old events and cables, etc? Open them up, yesterday. 

 

But think about that: The NSA, the deep state, was willing to flout any number of laws, agreements and regulations to bring the correct people into power, globally. Even in Europe, and even to the present day. 

And if elements within the German government, or the French government, or NATO writ large were privy to the plot beforehand?

Were you aware that senior leadership of the Bundeswehr who had also held key positions in NATO from its infancy were at the Pentagon, meeting with the JCS, on November 22, 1963?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Likely, I cannot convince you of my bona fides. I accept you do not regard me as serious. 

I merely stated that all of us should not only tolerate dissent from our views, but encourage dissent. Encourage participation in EF-JFK---as I do you. 

 

 

On the contrary, I take you very seriously, otherwise I wouldn't be concerned by your comments.  Dissent over facts isn't "dissent", it's attempted distortion. the action of giving a misleading account or impression.

Trump was not a victim of regime change.  There is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis.  There are tens and tens and tens of thousands of pages that document his attempted to overthrow a democratic election ... an attempted Coup.  

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Dad Gummitt.  Not to detract from the thread but Cactus Jack made me think of JFK calling former Roosevelt VP John Nance, Catus Jack Garner the morning of 11/22/63 before he left Fort Worth to wish him a happy Birthday.  

Cactus Jack drinks coffee black stuck on my mind in rewind at the moment.  Maybe sharing it will free me, though it's a refreshing memory.

TSHA | Garner, John Nance (tshaonline.org)

 

5 o'clock in tha Texas mornin', it's been-a long long w-a-a-y.  He was the best! Think I saw him at Willy's picnic one year.

I can't believe the high strangeness of the "Cactus Jack" coincidence. Thank you for sharing this!