Roger Odisio

Let's review. You posted innuendo that Greenwald was working for the Russians, "some people" suspected. I asked who these people were and what you meant by the vague term "working for the Russians" I asked the questions so your claims can be evaluated but you ignored each, likely because you have no answer to them. Instead you decided to insult me. I have been completely conned by Russian propaganda, you claim to know, and have no idea whom I can trust or believe. I would ask how you know either of those things, but it's clear that would be a waste of time. You have wasted too much of my time already.

New link to the Nagle article: https://jfkfacts.substack.com/

Who are these people, Matt? "Working for Russia" is an exceedingly flabby term. What do you mean by it?

An article on Jeff Morley's site written by Chad Nagle. https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#!!&app=io.ox/mail&folder=default0/INBOX. Here is my comment on it. There is another answer to the what else is missing question, that maybe even more important than the information about the body. As explained by Vince Salandria in his "False Mystery" speech at the Nov 20,1998 COPA Convention, the AF1 tapes also contain messages about the murder itself from the White House Situation Room run by McGeorge Bundy to both planes. The messages were recounted in both Theodore White's book, "The Making of the President, 1964" and Pierre Salinger's book, "With Kennedy". Both men obviously had access to the tape originals. From the tapes, White learned "that there was no conspiracy, learned the identity of Oswald and his arrest", according to Salandria. Salinger tried to get the tapes for Salandria, instructed NARA to make them available, but, surprise! they had disappeared. These tapes indeed should be an important request of NARA in the MFF lawsuit, should it get that far, as Bill and Larry have said. So far the judge has made a (strange) distinction between missing and destroyed information, allowing searches for the former. Undaunted, Salandria asked the White House Communications Agency for a copy of the tapes. This was in 1968. He was told the tapes "are kept for official use only, These tapes are not releasable, nor are they obtainable from commercial sources." An obvious lie. People at the WH Situation Room telling those on the planes coming back to DC that Oswald did it alone before they could have possibly known that was a major blunder. It had to be covered up. Salandria concluded it was "conclusive evidence of high-level US government guilt".

Your analysis helps explain to skeptics why the killers would organize a crossfire with multiple shooters, yet go to the public with the story that Oswald did it alone from the sixth floor. The murder was a rousing success for them and emboldened them to continue on, solidifying their position with more murders by "lone nuts".

This note is just a small addition to the avalanche of information rebutting your claims about Russiagate that Keven has laid in front of you, Sandy. Keven: do you have an army of lawyers helping you or have you done your posts all by yourself? You're amazing. Sandy: I'm no expert, but I do know what is reported in the news. And I do know what Trump says and what Putin says. And I do have an opinion on Russiagate. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that your anti-Russiagate journalists are influenced by Russian propaganda in left-wing alternate/fake news sites. RO: By "what is reported in the news" I think you you mean as told by the MSM, particularly MSNBC, where Russiagate has been flogged for years and no criticism, or even questioning, of it, has ever been permitted. And no lies told in the process, even when established, have been acknowledged or walked back. If you're looking for fake news you should probably start with these people. Are you aware of Rachel Maddow's defense in a suit challenging something she said on the air? My show is not a news show, she said, I offer my commentary on the news. It's my opinions, which I'm entitled to have and can't be sued for expressing. She won. Case dismissed. Btw, the same argument was used by Tucker Carlson, when he was on Fox, against a similar suit. He won too. There you have it. What you're relying on is for the most part not verified, factual information, but rather the opinions of people that you want to believe. Frequently reported as if it were the news, despite Maddow's claim. When the MSM told you that the "intelligence community" said Hunter Biden's laptop was fake Russian disinformation (the bogeyman again), did you believe them? As far as I can tell from your (non)answers so far, you "suspect" that the journalists who dissected Russiagate for the self-serving hoax it is are influenced by "Russian propaganda" on "fake news sites" because that is what you want to believe, to fit in with the rest of your beliefs. You have offered no substantiation for your suspicion. Your acceptance of William's naming Consortium News as a fake news site spewing Russian propaganda is particularly outrageous. By itsownterms, it is a "Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc." It was founded by the estimable Robert Parry, as Keven explained. Go to the site and peruse the names of its board of directors and read some of the articles there now to see how ridiculous your charge is. You "don't know for sure" about your Russiagate opinion because you have made no attempt to rebut or even address the points made debunking it. For example, I explained how Russia-did-it was hatched by Hillary at the 2016 Dem convention to divert attention from the damaging substance of her emails released by Assange. Then it was used to explain her defeat, and finally to underlie the current Russia, Russia fever, rivaling the McCarthy scandals of the 50s, that is the basis for the current neocon obsession with war. It is that obsession and enforcing the current version of Pax American that is now the major, deleterious effect resulting from in a belief in Russiagate. You have been silent about all of this. You obviously know next to nothing about the journalists you smear as fools falling for Russian propaganda. and in particular, what they have written to substantiate their analysis. You've made no attempt to identify the propaganda you're talkng about that they fell for and trace it in things they have written. That would be worth considering. Instead you merely, continuously repeat your claim that they are dupes, without substantiation. Sandy: That sounds precisely like propaganda designed to deflect from the charge that Putin wanted Trump to win. RO: Yes, it's possible Putin was lying about this preference in 2016. But that claim requires evidence not simply conjecture. Sandy: There can be no doubt that Putin wants Trump to win. Trump has made it clear in his tweets and his speeches that he intend on removing American support from Ukraine. And that he says Putin should do "whatever the hell they want" with non-NATO countries like Ukraine. RO: You have subtlely changed the terms. The question is whether *in 2016, when Trump was largely unknown as a politician*, Putin preferred Hillary. Not what he thinks now. Putin's knowledge of Hillary and fear of Trump's unreliability is a reasonable basis for preferring her. Sandy: So of course Putin wants Trump to win. And he wanted him to win in 2016 and 2020 s well. RO: See above. I should note the asymmetry of this question. Even if it can be shown Putin actually did prefer Trump, that's along way from substantiating Russiagate. Preferring Hillary, however, strikes a blow against the whole idea of Russiagate.

You've created no great mystery, Kirk as much as you tried. I thought it was worth bringing to the attention of all of those who had assumed Putin favored Trump, on their way to claiming he interfered in the election on Trump's behalf. Putin said that wasn't true; he actually preferred Clinton. I've taken no position on the truthfulness of his statement, but at the moment I know of nothing that contradicts it. Perhaps you can look into it, and find something.

You didn't answer the question above, Roger. RO: I didn't answer the question in part because I don't know the answer. More important, the question seems to me to be another diversion, since it has nothing to do with the question at hand: did Putin hack the DNC and give emails to Assange as away to help Trump beat Hillary? Kirk: *Ok, so you're not at all curious. Putin offers you his 2016 expectation of Trump Vs. Hilary to make him look impartial as to who the next President was to be in 2016, which begged the question of any inquiring mind, "what was the reality of in fact dealing with Trump as President?" If we accept your faith in what Putin says, you could always expect any politician to give you an insight that wouldn't make Trump look bad if he anticipated he might be working with him. RO: I never said I "had faith" in what Putin said was his preference for Hillary. Only that the reason he gave was plausible, which is not the same thing. No, your claim that Putin said it to make himself look impartial in 2024 is just your speculation. More likely, he was responding to the claim, often seen around here, that it was obvious he wanted Trump to win and so he engineered Russiagate to help him.

Sandy: As I said, I am no expert on this. And I have no intention of becoming one. Because of that I cannot confront what your journalists say. RO: Then maybe you should not have said, several times, that you believe or suspect that the journalists who debunked Russiagate did so only because they were fooled by Russian propagandists. They are too stupid to reach that conclusion by themselves based on the facts as they saw them. I don't think you realize how insulting your claims have been to these people, each of whom I respect. Sandy: But there's no doubt in my mind that Putin's guys are doing whatever they can think of to get Trump elected, given that is in Putin's best interests. Also given that Trump just adores Putin and has had many business deals in Russia. RO: Ok. I've been holding back this comment because I can anticipate its reception. But it's still worth making you aware of it. Putin recently said he had actually preferred Hillary in the 2016 election, for a very simple reason. He didn't like her. He didn't agree with her. But he had worked with her for a couple of decades and thought he understood her. He could work with her. On the other hand, he saw Trump as utterly unpredictable. That uncertainty was dangerous.

Sandy: Okay, then you know my answer. RO: Your response, that the journalists who debunked Russiagate, did so because they were duped by "Trump friendly fake news sites", rather than as a result of their journalistic work, is no answer at all. It's a way of avoiding confronting the substance of what they said. Sandy: And, I suspect, based on fake information they got from Trump-friendly alternative news sites RO: You "suspect", huh. You obviously don't know that to be true, or you would have offered evidence of it, having been asked for substantiation, or even to name these sites you are talking about, and have not done so. Sandy: They support the radical right. Trump benefits from that. RO: You're confused. All of the journalists that Keven and I have referred to are on the left. Sandy, I'm beginning to think that your belief system--whether you favor or believe something--is based on whether that thing helps or hurts Trump. Not whether it is true or not. 8 hours ago, Roger Odisio said: Sandy: Trump-friendly fake news site are pervasive on the internet. I don't know which ones those "journalists" read. RO: You have no evidence that any of the journalists were fooled by these sites you can't name but you think they were. Or sometimes you just suggest or suspect they were as away to discredit them without having to confront what they say.

Galloway has also been trying to wake up Jeremy Corbin to get him to form a coalition that would go after all the voters left behind by the Conservative-Labor duopoly that has emerged in Britain. An important commentator, yes, but I'm not sure he qualifies as a major politician or force just yet. He is probably ahead of where Junior Kennedy is in the US, as the world waits for Junior's announcement about his running mate. Or not.

What those rags said about Trump has nothing to do with the legitimate debunking of the Russiagate story by others using logic and facts. Nor do those alleged "Russian propagandists". Please stop the innuendo and name those propagandists and left wing outlets you mean, so the veracity of your claims can be evaluated.

I found the interview to be an interesting look at Pat's research approach, and his thinking on several subjects. I think it was more of an interview than a discussion by two people who disagreed. Carlier spent most of the time nodding in apparent agreement and at the end praised Pat's answers, while saying he had learned a lot. That he says he had started as a disciple of David Lifton, but was now a LNer indicates a certain openminded on his part, if nothing else. I want to focus on what you said about LBJ, Pat. You made an important point right off the bat. The others who wanted Kennedy whacked needed assurances from Johnson, before they could go ahead with the plan, that he wouldn't come after them afterwards. He would have authority over the coverup that protected them. But logic tells me Johnson's involvement with the murder plan went beyond that one nod of the head. The murder was not the work of a committee. There had to have been a small set of people with decisionmaking authority. It's likely Johnson was one of them, as I have said before. There was a well known disagreement among the full group of Kennedy haters about how to use the Oswald story they had agreed upon. After the murder Johnson quickly squelched the idea that Oswald did it for the commies. He had lusted after the presidency too long to see it destroyed by a catastrophic war. But there is no way the decisionmakers would have left that question to be decided on the fly after the murder, among the chaos that ensued. It seems clear that version was taken off the table before the murder was given the go ahead. It is also clear that Johnson, who was to be the guy with authority over the investigation once Oswald was killed, would have been the guy who insisted on that. Johnson killed the other investigation starting up to centralize everything in the Warren Commission he created to make sure there was no real inquiry. Which is not to say that those who wanted to go after Cuba and the SU all accepted no for an answer. There were still attempts after the murder to bring in Cuba and the SU as the villains, that Johnson had to squelch. There was a third element of Johnson's involvement. He had to assure the others he would not stand in the way of their foreign policy plans, as Kennedy had done. Pax Americana would be implemented. While stopping a war with the SU, and perhaps in return for it, he agreed to the Vietnam escalation. Johnson's agreement to remove the foreign policy impediments Kennedy had constructed was absolutely necessary before the plan could go forward. Otherwise the murder would have lost its main purpose. It's not clear how explicit Johnson's agreement had to be in that regard, since the others knew Johnson pretty well. But it had to be understood by the others.

You're simply repeating, again, what you already said. The journalists Keven named, and others like them, each reached their own conclusions about Russiagate based on actual work they did. Based on actual facts they discerned. In contrast to the news readers and pundits on TV and in mainstream "news" who report as fact what they are told, often without verification. The idea that Keven's journalists' reporting and analysis is based on Trump friendly news sites, besides being false, is a particular insult to them. I can assure none of them supports Trump, not that that matters. Maybe if you named these Trump friendly sites you claim were these journalists' sources, the falseness of the claim can be seen more clearly.

Thanks for this, Keven. I have been favored with the same rancid BS from William. The last one ended with his challenge: something like the ball is your court. I had been drafting a short response: why should I waste my time answering your post when you have responded to nothing I said, but have simply repeated long discredited trope. Your much more complete answer saves me some time. In particular, thanks for the tape from Jimmy Dore with and Aaron Mate showing Rachel Maddow as she began dissembling over the lies she had been telling about Russiagate. Night after night. That was 5 years ago!! and still no accountability.

Before you invest too heavily in Mueller's integrity and what his investigation did, I hope you have had a chance to read Craig Murray's account of the investigation that Keven posted. Do you know Murray? Imo, he is one of the world's pre-eminent writers on social issues, known for the clarity of his thought and ability to put things into context. His reporting on the recent Assange trial was head and shoulders above anyone else. Reading his article, the parallels between Mueller's investigation and that of the Warren Commission are eerily similar. Start with a conclusion you are looking to prove, cherrypick information, ignore key witnesses that could contradict your findings, e.g. Except Mueller was unable to substantiate the key purpose of his effort--tying Trump to the Russian perfidy he claims. Without talking to Binney, someone from the NSA, Murray himself, or Assange, all of whom could have contradicted him, Mueller falsely asserted that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the information to Assange. Even Mike Pompeo sought out Binney, a known expert in such matters, to get his thoughts. But not Mueller. Yes, Assange. It turns out Assange offered to talk to Mueller and Mueller turned him down. It's fascinating to consider what Assange would have told him (and still might tell the world should he survive the current attempt on his life). At a minimum, I think he would have clearly explained to Mueller that he did not get the emails from "the Russians". That being part of the record would have prevented Mueller from his false assertion about the Russian involvement and indeed it would have done great damage to the whole Russiagate mantra. It's clear why Mueller refused to talk to any of the people I mentioned. It shows the lack of integrity of his investigation. In any case, read Murray's article if you haven't yet for the full story.

I have read the District Court's finding in Brian Huddleston's lawsuit. Its finding: It is ordered that the government shall produce the information it possess related to Seth Rich's laptop and response to Plaintiff's FOIA requests within 14 days of this order. The order was issued Sep 29, 2022! Huddleston is some kind of bulldog. He started the case back in 2017 and has survived the FBI lies about not having anything and unfavorable court rulings. He just keeps coming back.

That's the fourth time, Cliff, you have tried to mislead by posting Henry's opinion about something he thinks "Fancy Bear" did, while you ignore what is important--CS's *finding* that they found no evidence of an outside hack of the DNC by Russia or anyone else You have been constantly using the term exfiltration as if it supports your claim of a hack. It doesn't. The term can be used to describe either a hack or leak: Exfiltration: to remove (data) from a computer, network, etc surreptitiously and without permission or unlawfully.

I guess you didn't read what I wrote earlier. On June 12 in an interview, Assange announced he would be releasing the DNC emails. Rich was murdered July 10. This isn't about faith in judgement, Sandy. It's about facts. In any case, why would you trust something you read on Wikipedia?