Leslie Sharp

52 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

You should retract this IMO; as its another egregious mis-characterisation. The person is not here to defend themselves, either. 
Not only that, let me ask you a question; do you desire that this thread and others go the same way as other threads that have turned septic? My continuing in the same vain you’ll almost certainly achieve the same outcome or potentially worse. 

I think this definition of madness originally comes from the bible; “People doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results.” 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

 

Having read more carefully Mark's explanation of how moderation works, I will modify it -- out of deference to you personally.

I too think this thread should remain focused on appreciation of the moderators' thankless task. However, at least one moderator commented that this is (paraphrasing) a debriefing or decompression, and a number of comments speak to the question of Mr. Koch's behavior so I felt it appropriate to acknowledge my role in the "imbroglio", and to also stand my ground that Mr. Koch's posts were without merit, lacking credibility, and clearly designed to trigger, ergo a conscious provocateur.

Deletion is forthcoming. ... make that modification is forthcoming.

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

With luck, perhaps EF commenters can go back to their mud-slinging, ironically under this "Thanks moderators" thread. 

Is Matthew Koch really banned? 

I thought Koch was more entertaining than Netflix, and free.

A variant of gonzo journalism, to dredge up an old phrase.

He should have avoided some situations and posts, to be sure. 

Oh well. The tedium is setting in? 

 

You've never read Thompson then.  

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Nice try, Mark.

The odd one out in that list of “insults” is the one to which you had to append an explanatory note in order to try to make it an insult.

The reason you had to do that is of course because the term “fellow traveller” is not an insult. It’s a purely descriptive term for someone who shares another’s ideology.

Each of the other terms you listed is described as “derogatory” by the Oxford Dictionary, but “fellow traveller” is not.

Things are fairly desperate when a moderator has to resort to the Humpty Dumpty method of word definitions: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

This is parallel universe “Alice through the Looking Glass” stuff.

John, keep in mind that one of Matthew Koch’s final posts on the infamous thread was a link to a Milo Yiannopoulos video with a kind of chyron claiming that feminism is equivalent to AIDS. Turns out, Milo is a “fellow traveler”. 

From 2017… Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker

Yiannopoulos is the technology editor for Breitbart, the right-wing, pro-Trump news site formerly run by Steve Bannon, who is now President Trump’s chief strategist and arguably the most powerful man in the White House. While working for Bannon, Yiannopoulos did more than anyone else at Breitbart to explain and build bridges to the so-called alt-right, the amorphous collection of neo-nationalist [SIC]activists. Bannon once said that Breitbart was “the platform for the alt-right.” . . .

Yiannopoulos, who has called himself a “fellow-traveller” [sic] of the movement, last year wrote a sympathetic essay, “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right,” which attempted to usher the movement into semi-respectability among the site’s many Trump-loving readers. At an infamous alt-right conference in Washington in November, attendees toasted Trump with the National Socialist salute. But, over the past year, Yiannopoulos, along with the alt-right, Bannon, and Trump—whom Yiannopoulos often calls “Daddy”—moved from the laughingstock fringes to the center of the conservative movement. 

So, are you arguing that Matthew Koch wasn’t aware of what he was saying when he referred to “fellow-traveler”?  Remember Mr. Koch apparently respects Mr. Yioannopolis which explained his obnoxious remarks directed at a female on that thread. And no, I'm not asking for a rehash. The facts stand, and I will own my part in succumbing to his triggers on several occasions.

For Chris Barnard's benefit, from my subjective experience, which I am entitled to express, Mr. Koch exhibited the characteristics of a trained provocateur. Chris, if we're permitted to identify perps in the Kennedy assassination who are no longer able to defend themselves, logically the same rule should apply here. If I'm still transgressing forum rules, a moderator, not a school monitor, should step in.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-alt-right-fellow-traveller-milo-yiannopoulos-cracked-up-the-right

52 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Maybe so but who were they? 

Paul, can you or Evan clarify "him"?

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Since this is a kind of post-mortem thread for the defunct, monster 56 Years thread, I had a few additional thoughts overnight.

One thought has to do with the general mission/purpose of this fine Education Forum, and the subject of what constitutes "uncivil" discourse.

Is it "uncivil" or "disrespectful" to criticize falsehoods-- i.e., alleged "facts" and opinions that are contradicted by established facts?

Are we supposed to be "respectful" of all opinions-- even those that are invalid?

I think not.

On the contrary, my impression is that the mission/purpose of this Education Forum is to discern and report the truth, about history and other subjects.

As a corollary, falsehoods need to be refuted.

Case in point.  Most of us believe that America's destiny was betrayed after 11/22/63, by men who conspired to murder President Kennedy in order to alter JFK's foreign and military policies.

Consequently, we tend to refute the false Warren Commission thesis that JFK was assassinated by a Lone Nut.

Is that uncivil?

Similarly, an important topic on the 56 Years thread was Trump's conspiracy to obstruct the certification of Biden's election on January 6th.

The evidence of Trump's J6 conspiracy has been quite ample, especially as a result of the 2022 Congressional J6 Committee investigation.

And, yet, as in the case of the WCR "Lone Nut" narrative, some people in the media, (especially Tucker Carlson) and on this forum, have repeatedly promoted false narratives about January 6th.

These are the same people who insist that it is "uncivil" for forum members to criticize their false claims about January 6th.

Some have also erroneously claimed that criticism of their false claims constitutes an "ad hominem" attack.

It doesn't.

Adding two cents, W. Banning the use of historically accurate terms distorts truth and compromises facts.  For instance, fact — the title of Yeadon and Hawkins' book is N azi Hydra in America, not PooPoo Hydra in America.  The classic by Shirer and Rosenbaum, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: The history of N azi Germany, is not  subtitledThe History of PooPoo Germany.  I'm guessing you agree how absurd and silly this reads on a forum purporting to appeal to historians of all stripes? (and the go-arounds are even more ludicrous.  N-azi is not, historically, hyphenated nor does it have a backslash, or other creative solutions to the silly ban.)   I'm aware the term N-zi was being hurled as an epithet on this forum, but surely there's an algorithm that distinguishes usage?

And I'll add that because what goes around comes around, I'm opposed to censorship in any fashion unless it's to prevent or interrupt someone from (metaphorically) crying fire in the crowded theatre. "And then they came for us," as is happening with book banning. It goes without saying that robust debate is the cornerstone of democracy so I believe the lies promoted by TC and his ilk provide a perfect foil to advance truth and we must, now more than ever, rise to the occasion. Contrary to Kelleyanne Conway, there are no alternative truths.  But, it requires truth seekers to hone their research and communication skills.  I'm talking to myself and the recent imbroglio with Mathew Koch. I'm not immune to triggers and should have been on my toes.  That said, I have no doubt he has been trained, seriously trained.  I recognized some of the tactics, but fell prey anyway.  Your observation of the timeline of the insanity that ensued on that thread aligns with my research into the history. He joined in September, and I suspect he was assigned Ed Forum. In time, maybe one of us can nail it down. Thus is the nature of most who are committed to K assassination research. I respect your posts hugely!
 

22 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

 

 

Criticisms can be respectful of the poster while disputing the veracity of their claims. 

Calling the people who make these posts "whackos," "nutjobs," "cretins," "subhuman," "fellow travellers" [a term that harkens back to the "Red Scare" days of the 1950s, if I'm not mistaken], and other insulting names IS an ad hominem attack. 

Disputing the truth of a source is NOT an attack on the poster. 

And this forum does not intend to operate on the principle of "an eye for an eye." If you are a victim of an ad hominem, that does NOT give you license to resort to the same tactic. This is made clear in the forum rules of behavior. Anyone who refuses to abide by those rules can face discipline...or they can choose to leave of their own accord. Moderators cannot be on every thread 24/7. That's why the new rule was implemented under which a member can request another member to remove an offensive comment. Because the moderators and administrators have lives away from this forum, and away from the entire internet, and only drop in from time to time, the "report to moderator" function won't always bring about an immediate response.

"...and we are all mortal." None of us is perfect. The mods and admins try to do the best they can, with the information that they have. There are times in which some reports are discussed among mods and admins to decide upon the proper course of action. While a course of action may have the name of only one of them, it's likely that a majority of them, possibly even in unanimity, decided on the course of action that is visible.

Think about these things. It's generally a thankless job, so a thread such as this actually thanking the mods and admins is quite rare.

Mark, having been baptized by fire moderating Russ Baker's whowhatwhy.org in the early days, I have the greatest respect for you and the team — regardless of my own subjective view of certain recent adjudication.  It's a thankless task.

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Steve,

     I agree that the 56 Years thread needed to be put to rest.

     But, since we are all erstwhile historians, I went back and studied the trajectory of that thread this evening.

     We were all having lively, informed discussions about current events until roughly October of 2022.

     Beginning in October, the thread was infiltrated and increasingly disrupted by Mathew Koch's MAGA spam, and an openly expressed agenda of disrupting and challenging the alleged "leftist" bias on the forum.

     It was all downhill after that, as Mathew's MAGA movement picked up momentum from a motley international crew.

     Jeremy Bojzuk posted a rather hilarious, literary critique of our forum's MAGA movement last night, by one Alex Wilson.  Worth reading, especially for T.S. Eliot fans.

      I wrote a comment about Mr. Wilson's "Hollow Men" critique this morning, but Mark Knight closed the thread just before I clicked the "Send" button.

As a matter of interest, W., wasn't the Wilson analysis of the thread posted on kennedysandking, and didn't it originate with Paul Blau at ROKC?  I may have the trajectory reversed, and for all I know Blau and Wilson are one and the same.

I haven't checked recently, but in the past I've noticed that Jim DiE doesn't always permit comments. Is the Wilson analysis allowed to smolder? 

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Smartmatic is asking for $2.7 billion. Dominion is just first in line.

Let's face it the "news" companies nowadays are little more than content for advertisers and it's been that way for some time. Like Chomsky says, since profits depend on the advertising models rather than viewership or subscriptions (direct audience generated revenue) those organizations will have no interest in changing their editorial slant until such time as their advertisers demand it or leave. But much of what we're talking about isn't "editorial slant". It's outright fabricated information which "Fox NEWS" (NOT Fox opinion) put forth at the same time they apparently knew the information was fabricated. This absolutely impacts both Dominion and Smartmatic's ability to do business as they are multi-billion dollar businesses with employees and the whole lot who are now at least partially seen as not credible.

The news organizations receive protection specifically in the constitution but that also comes with a responsibility to investigate the veracity of their claims. Usually, cases don't make the docket unless a strong set of issues make it likely a plaintiff will prevail. People can't just sue every time they disagree with what a newspaper opines. It's a waste of money and court resources. What you seem to be saying is they get to play both sides: "Hey we weren't reporting news! We're an opinion organization!" But we get to claim the protection of a news organization!" Which is it?

An entity claiming to "give an opinion" is absolutely subject to all the legal remedies available to a plaintiff if they maliciously malign, slander or defame them. Courts have consistently held that news organizations can't recklessly disregard the truth when reporting on matters of public concern. In this case, they're not saying so and so is a bad candidate or it's a shame he won (an opinion many would agree with) they were saying the entire voting procedure, effecting all voters, was fraudulent and of great PUBLIC CONCERN. They're including ALL voters and not a subsection or segment, which has been shown to be false and known to Fox NEWS at that time. They knew there wasn't a fire and not only claimed otherwise, used the near full extent of their massive resources to perpetuate the lie.

Finally, courts have also held that news organizations are liable for damages if they publish or broadcast defamatory statements with a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

tl;dr

Taint that hard methinks. Would have been dismissed long ago but hey, IANAL.

They knew there wasn't a fire and not only claimed otherwise, used the near full extent of their massive resources to perpetuate the lie.

Succinct and to the point.  

QED

15 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Leslie- I'll ask Rex. Thanks!

Full disclosure, Rex may remember my name as a member of a small camp of researchers concerned by the privatization of the Ferrell collection.  

I trust he'll distinguish this project from that history.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am no lawyer, but Glenn Greenwald seems to think the Dominion case is iffy.

Years ago in California there was a problem with "SLAP" suits.

That is, if a large company wanted to shut someone up, they would sue them. In the US, you must answer a complaint, and that costs $10k out of the gate. 

Whatever the merits of the Dominion case, they may just want to make it expensive for anybody to investigate voting-machine issues. 

BTW, this was a NYT magazine cover story in 2018:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

They said voting machines were very vulnerable. A "crisis." 

Interesting how tunes change. 

 if a large company wanted to shut someone up, they would sue them.

Risking aboutism (among the more annoying contemporary debate tactics), you're familiar with Trump's track record?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

No credit cards, no Kindle. On top of that Paypal just stopped service in Thailand for non-nationals. 

I can pay someone through Payoneer (I think) if a PDF comes my way....

Do you have Adobe Acrobat? My Word version of the manuscript is pre-final-edit, but I think I can send you the Acrobat final edit.  I'll check with our editor.  If you're genuinely interested, I'll make the effort.

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Apols. 

I thought you were working on getting new evidence ---documents, records---released (a worthy cause in its own right) but also further a perspective you have regarding the true JFKA perps (also entirely justifiable). 

BTW, I would read a new thread of yours in which you lay out in simple form who you suspect as the true JFKA perps.

Let us hope for no more derailments!

A number have requested a lite version of Hank's investigation so we're in discussion regarding to the possibility. For now, you might read Coup in small bites over a few months? I think you can get it online for $15 these days.  If your in Thailand, I think Kindle version is quite reasonable as well.

Here's to no more derailments.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We should listen to Larry Schnapf on matters of law. 

If you have extremely firmly held ideologies or beliefs regarding the JFKA, that is fine.

But can we stop the pissing wars and back Larry? He is doing good work. 

I am sure I have some disagreements some political issues with Larry, or have different suspects in mind for the JFKA. 

So what? 

55 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Leslie Sharp- that would be great.  it could become a tool to help with our lawsuit.  

I also just want to be clear that in explaning the burdens of proving a defamation case, I was not defending Fox. I was simply responding to some posts who seemed to suggest Domination had a slam dunk case based on the selective desposition leaks. 

and I once urge those who watch the more progressive cable news programs to try to organize and apply pressure on them to follow the JFK Records case. the one lesson from the Dominion defamation case is that a cable network feels pressure when its audience is unhappy and is beginning to drift to other stations. If you guys can make it clear to the other stations that they need to cover the illegal withholding of assassination records, then we wont have to rely on Tucker to break news on this topic. 

Finally, if any of you have good contacts at any of the good government/open government/transparency nonprofits, please let me know. we'd love to have them file amici briefs opposing the governments motion to dismiss. You all can help with this important lawsuit. 

I just remembered that Oliver Curme has a non-profit in Boston that appeared (last I looked) to be well connected, albeit in the music world but no doubt it's a potential introduction to government transparency nonprofits in New England.  If you haven't approached him with the recommendation, should someone on the MFF board or team make the attempt? Caveat ... this may have been discussed and I've simply missed it.

1 minute ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Verily, I live offshore now.  'Nuff said.

I encourage you to start a thread regarding the true origins of the JFKA.

I am open to your views. 

 

Ben, apparently you misread the exchange with Larry.  We're discussing a thread dedicated solely to egregious failures by NARA to fulfill FOIA requests, not yet another thread on the origins of the assassination in Dallas. Best you not attempt to derail momentum?

btw, views are not the equivalent of fresh evidence.

12 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Leslie Sharp- that would be great.  it could become a tool to help with our lawsuit.  

I also just want to be clear that in explaning the burdens of proving a defamation case, I was not defending Fox. I was simply responding to some posts who seemed to suggest Domination had a slam dunk case based on the selective desposition leaks. 

and I once urge those who watch the more progressive cable news programs to try to organize and apply pressure on them to follow the JFK Records case. the one lesson from the Dominion defamation case is that a cable network feels pressure when its audience is unhappy and is beginning to drift to other stations. If you guys can make it clear to the other stations that they need to cover the illegal withholding of assassination records, then we wont have to rely on Tucker to break news on this topic. 

Finally, if any of you have good contacts at any of the good government/open government/transparency nonprofits, please let me know. we'd love to have them file amici briefs opposing the governments motion to dismiss. You all can help with this important lawsuit. 

Finally, if any of you have good contacts at any of the good government/open government/transparency nonprofits, please let me know. we'd love to have them file amici briefs opposing the governments motion to dismiss. You all can help with this important lawsuit.

We can incorporate that request on the new dedicated thread.

I believe it was Ben who said recently that this is a tiny pond . . . and perhaps he was referring only to the recent thread that almost took down the house . . . that none other than the twelve or so even cared about the debate.

II argued that he has no idea who is following Ed Forum from the bleachers.  That argument was borne out yesterday when two other credible sites picked up on the brouhaha of of that particular thread and ran with it - unfortunately in a ridiculing fashion.  

The point being ... this, and other forums that qualified amateur researchers follow, can have spin-off results in support of the NARA case.  I know you have invested considerable energy already to set similar efforts in motion, and possibly you've suggested this at Ed Forum previously. Hopefully moderators will recognize redundancy.

Another venue or two might tip the scales.

[for the record, I sent Maddow's staff a copy of Coup. No response to date. Maybe another attempt, through our publisher, highlighting your arguments that Carlson has grabbed the gauntlet might have some success.]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I live in Thailand. 

What I support is you posting in the JFKA Debates your views on the true perps of the JFKA, and how their backers have influenced US policies. 

And your views about opening all JFK and other records are interesting to me.  

If you have evidence that the true perps of the JFKA remain influential in US government today, and are active somehow, then bring it on.

I am less interested in denigrating people who have different points of view than mine.

I hope you are open to civil discussions on what may be debatable points in your presentations.

Are you a US citizen, just out of curiosity?

I respect highly your support of Larry and the team's efforts to secure the final batch of documents. But I'm assuming with this response that your support is limited to moral, not actively contributing in some fashion?

15 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Leslie - I will surely join you. Larry’s suggestion is on the money. 

Right on, Paul. 

Hopefully Ben and others committed to Larry and Bill's effort will get on board.

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We should listen to Larry Schnapf on matters of law. 

If you have extremely firmly held ideologies or beliefs regarding the JFKA, that is fine.

But can we stop the pissing wars and back Larry? He is doing good work. 

I am sure I have some disagreements some political issues with Larry, or have different suspects in mind for the JFKA. 

So what? 

Ben, will you join me in the effort proposed by Larry? Will you actively support and contribute to a new Ed Forum thread that is exclusive, i.e. limited to gathering a list of the more egregious mishandling of NARA files - not just the Joannides batch — but others including Jean Rene Marie Soutre and Dallas INS November 1963? It will require time and effort to solicit information to build the list. It's your opportunity to actively support Larry, Bill and the rest of the team as you are admonishing others to do.

Do you live in Britain? which would limit your efforts to approach your local, state and federal representatives.

I don't know the level of knowledge you have of the actual investigation, but you seem to be committed to a bipartisan effort to solve the case and we agree that securing the rest of the assassination and related files is a major (perhaps final) step.  Either the files being withheld are holding keys, or they're not.

 Pls. advise? 

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Leslie- why dont you state a separate thread not only on records not are not in the collection but also for researchers to document their communications with NARA or agencies to obtain these records. we may want to add some further examples of how NARA has mishandled or failed to comply with these requests.

Will do Larry, if a thread doesn't already exist. 

I'll include links to J. Gary Shaw's suit as example, and track down Hank Albarelli's FOIA for Souetre files as well.

It's clear you're not in a position to get into the debate about Carlson's motives, and I respect that a bird in the hand is ....

But for any who are listening, I contend the issue is relevant to the discussion at hand when it is argued that because Carlson pursued the NARA case five years after Trump failed to conform to the JFK Record Act, he's a better journalist than those of opposing political persuasion who are cognizant he is attempting to politicize what should have been a bipartisan effort all along.   You no doubt recall that Hilary Clinton was on board release of the files.  What happened?

55 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

That "Ultra" podcast was fantastic; a valuable history lesson for all Americans. She did a great public service with it.

And it wasn't partisan or opinion-oriented in the slightest.

Agree all, Matt.

I ask for indulgence of those members participating on this thread if you're annoyed that I'm diverting somewhat from the Thankyou! Tucker Carson topic. I argue it's part and parcel.

And Larry, I'm going to risk taking advantage of this opportunity to capture your attention on the question of those still withheld files. I plan to direct mail Jeff Morley the following, but it seems to me the request should be made public as well.

Hi Jeff,

A research friend brought to my attention the following from the Spartacus Education page featuring your work . . . 

I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that have not been released.

(I assume the invitation still stands regardless of the passage of time.)

Also, in tandem, several researchers have contacted me recently to ask if Hank ever received a response to his FOIA for the 14-page report — CIA and/or FBI — on Jean Rene Marie Souetre. If he received the records prior to his passing, he would have highlighted them in the draft manuscript of Coup. 

We’re also searching for INS records of the detention of one or more French citizens in Dallas on November 22.  I recently confirmed with J. Gary Shaw (co-investigator with Bud Fensterwald) who sued for access to Souere and related records, that he has never been provided INS reports of the alleged deportation of Souetre/Mertz/Roux.

Would you consider adding the “lost” Souetre files, and the INS records for November in Dallas, to the list of priority records still being withheld? 

I know that among those lifelong assassination researchers, Gary, Alan Kent, and Jeff Meek — who according to Mary Ferrell was the first to secure at least one document related to Souetre — are supportive of my request.

regards as always,

Leslie

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Matt- the disclaimers are unnecessary. it is clear they are opinion hosts just as Rachel Maddow and the others on MSNBC.  That is one reason why they were not liable for defamation for misreporting about Trump and Russia.....

I'm sorry, Larry, but is this "opinion"?
 https://www.rachelmaddow.com/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra/

I trust this comment won't be perceived as an attempt to divert from the topic of the thread. You have compared Maddow to Carlson so I feel justified in offering the following. 

Her thorough research - not opinion -  is directly related to "the inevitable end result of the past [60] years," yet she continues to be pilloried by 'the community' because she has contended in the past that Oswald was a lone nut.

For the record, evidence presented in our book insists that Oswald was somewhere in the middle ... a critical component of the Dallas plot and at least partially aware of his role as patsy in the lead up.

In ULTRA, Rachel identities a key N-azi propagandist, George Sylvester Viereck, who surfaced in Hank's investigation into assassination strategist SS Otto Skorzeny and his co-horts.

What does Tucker Carlson actually know about this area of research which we contend is germane to the cold-case murder investigation, and where was he when Trump failed to release ALL files as promised during his 2015 campaign, and as supported by the JFK Act?



 

Is it lost on anyone that the remaining JFK files have become a political wedge issue? Is anyone surprised?

Where was the outcry from Carlson et al. when Trump failed to release all files while he was the first president to have the full force of the JFK Act in his quiver?  

We're now being told that he was "frightened" to do so because of what he saw in those files.  This sounds like quintessential Roger Stone dirty tricks to me.

And I concur, as Larry and his team have emphasized for months, the outcome of the pending case matters greatly ... but  I argue that unless we, the community, figure out the layers of subterfuge in play at the moment, which in my opinion reflect the very ideological forces that drove the assassination in Dallas — we miss an opportunity to fully expose the end result of the past 60 years. I think we can do both ... confront this on fronts ancillary to Larry and Bill's pending legal suit.  

Ed Forum is among the most credible platforms for just such an effort. Allowing bully provocateurs who are distorting the record of January 6 — in direct support of the president who failed to release all of the files in 2017, the legally designated year — to shut down a thread directly relevant to the aforementioned is not only embarrassing for the community writ large, it is extremely concerning in my view.  

8 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Thanks, Captain Obvious got any more mind blowing revelations? 

Matt Allison, I think Matthew is tired and grumpy.