Roger Odisio

Thanks for the response. What does "yes" mean? Here is Nichols' news conference after talking to Oswald. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFkb9sOmq6g. From the Dallas Morning News : "What I am interested in is knowing right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?" Mr. Nichols asked Oswald. Nichols asked Oswald if he wanted the Dallas Bar, or him, to find him an attorney. They had a program that would provide lawyers for indigent individuals. He was concerned that Oswald had no representation. But this is a major criminal case. Sounds like that kind of offer was inadequate on its face, but it was a concrete offer. An F Lee Bailey could be added to the team later. This was about immediate help for Oswald and getting his alibi on the record. I suspect Oswald understood that. Yes, it's unclear when a lawyer could be gotten. It's true, apparently Nichols didn't make the offer with some person already in mind. I think somewhere in the conference Nichols said he had not contacted anybody yet for the job. He wanted to first ask Oswald. Nichols himself was not a criminal lawyer. But what if Oswald said to him I need a lawyer right now (in the course of agreeing to Nichols' offer, not turning him down) because they are continuing to question me without one, violating my rights. What would Nichols have said? Nichols comes across, and may actually be, someone who was genuinely concerned that Oswald lacked representation. He had some inquiries from other lawyers, but he took it upon himself to visit Oswald, he said, because he was concerned about that. As for Abt, Oswald told Nichols he had asked family members that afternoon to contact him. Apparently they couldn't reach him before Oswald was murdered. You have supplied details about others doing a lawyer search. None of them bore fruit before Oswald was murdered. Which leaves my questions on the table. What if... My initial reaction is accepting Nichols' offer would not have saved Oswald's life unless he could have told his alibi to the lawyer that night before he was murdered the next morning. Then, as I said, I don't know what would happen to that information or the lawyer he talked to. I need the help of a lawyer but so far none has stepped forward to help. I don't think accepting Nichols' offer per se would have accelerated his murder any sooner than when it was done the next morning. Oswald's mere indication that he was pursuing a lawyer was enough to doom him quickly.

Yes, I get that you are very clear in *your mind* when you repeatedly assert *as fact* the idea of the WC did not come from Johnson, but he was convinced or bamboozled into it by others. You know something about the WC and have written five books about it. Does that crude appeal to authority mean you won't be questioned about your assertions? It's clear that has been your posture in this thread. When I present you with countervailing evidence, even simple stuff like the Alsop suggestion had nothing to do with, was entirely different from, what became the WC, (as shown by the Alsop quotes in the Gibson article you keep asking me to read!) and therefore could not have been the source of the idea *as it played out*, you ignore that and simply repeat your assertion as fact. That's just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why Johnson wanted the WC he created, all of which you have ignored. So it's not "we" who can or should stop this discussion. This is the second time you've wanted to skip away without addressing any alternative points. I'm coming to believe there is nothing I could say that would cause you to reexamine your assertion. For the record, I didn't say you didn't know the WC was a joke. My point was the fact that the WC was a fraud intended to frame Oswald rather than discover what happened, coincides precisely with the needs of the killers. Whoever designed and implemented it that way could not have been Alsop or Rostow, unless you think they were in bed with the killers. Again, no response from you. Here I go, giving you more things to ignore. You say I'm avoiding your point that "with Hoover as the investigator the verdict [of the WC]would have been the same. It's true I forgot to mention this in my last post' The WC was created in part because those who created it did not want to rely solely the FBI report. They didn't think it was good enough, but mostly because they (rightly) thought there would be (large)segments of the population who woudn't believe the nothing-to-see here message coming statement from the FBI. Hoover was not "the investigator "of the WC. They hired a bunch of lawyers to create the record framing Oswald and 7 prominent Americans to front the pre-ordained conclusion. I'm sure you know this. I'm not sure why you made your claim.

I woke up this morning thinking about that all-time great movie, Sophie's Choice. Oswald had a similar life or death choice to make. From the time of his arrest in the theater, Oswald was clamoring for a lawyer. When, soon after his arrest that Friday, the jackals in the hall screamed "did you kill the president", Oswald said no sir I didn't. Finally, as the question was repeated he screamed I'm just a patsy, as he was shoved into an elevator. He realized he was being framed for the JFKA. An individual's rights against self incrimination and to a lawyer weren't fully established until 1966 in the Supreme Court's Miranda decision (Legal scholars: could there have been a connection between that decision and the spectacle of Oswald's treatment by the authorities in '63?). But after more than a day of questioning Oswald without a lawyer present and allowing him to be question by news media in public, it's likely the authorities realized they might be jeopardizing their case. Even if they didn't care about that (I think they were planning to kill him to take a trial off the table), various lawyers, including those with the ACLU, were contacting the authorities, asking if Oswald had representation, and wanting to represent him. What the authorities were doing was a bad look at a minimum. A side note: during the WC proceedings, Mark Lane offered to sit in to represent Oswald (he recognized the whole proceeding was about framing Oswald), including the right to cross examine information presented about Oswald). He was turned down. The WC was conducted almost entirely in secret. Silly idea! What was benefit of killing Oswald and burying and distorting his story if someone could be there challenging us! Saturday afternoon the head of the Dallas Bar showed up to offer Oswald the services of one the lawyers from his organization. Oswald understood the extent of right wing control of Dallas. He turned down the offer. He said he preferred a New York lawyer, John Abt, or someone from the ACLU. But he didn't leave it there. If he couldn't get one of his choices he would reconsider the offer. Get back to him in a few days if he hadn't found a lawyer of his choice. I've contended this was an alarm bell. The murder of Oswald couldn't wait. He couldn't be allowed to talk to a lawyer, even one of our own guys, and tell him his alibi: where he was when Kennedy was murdered, Oswald was dead less than 24 hours later. It's my understanding that in a case like this, a client's lawyer is an officer of the court required to pursue a defense of his client. It's the adversarial system. That's how we got Johnnie Cochrane telling those lies about OJ. That means when Oswald told his lawyer that he had stepped out after lunch to "watch the p. parade" his lawyer would have tried to verify his claim. NBC would not have been able to hide the Darnell and Weigman films! The danger of this scenario to the authorities is clear isn't it? But suppose Oswald had made a different choice when offered a Bar lawyer. Suppose he had said the following. I didn't do it. I'm being framed. I need to talk to a lawyer who can handle my defense. Please choose a good criminal lawyer from your org and have him come by tonight. I need to tell him my story as soon as possible. I need him to sit in the next time I'm questioned. Would that choice have saved Oswald's life? Would it have preserved the evidence exonerating Oswald that the authorities have tried so assiduously to suppress? Even if Oswald told his alibi to a lawyer, could he have still been murdered and the lawyer walk away in silence, since there would be no trial? Is there even a legal avenue for a conscientious lawyer, having learned first hand of Oswald's alibi, to pursue his exoneration? Damn, I wish Greg Parker hadn't closed ROKC. This is a question right up their alley. Maybe some of the lawyers here can help me understand these questions.

First a suggestion. Stop categorizing my arguments--"silly" and "bizarre" this time--and just try to rebut them. Your rebuttal needs a lot of work. You say Alsop told Johnson he was not suggesting a new investigative body because he (Alsop) was playing him. Alsop knew what he wanted from Johnson. He said that to him only to make it seem like he was *not* manipulating him. He said that only to "detract" from his actual agenda. Did you mean "distract"? How would that actually work? In any case, what's missing from your formulation to make sense of your assertion is what Alsop *did* want Johnson to do. Why was he talking to Johnson? Fortunately Alsop explains that in the dialogue you say you read but somehow failed to mention. Here is what he said. I'm not suggesting you establish a new investigative body. I'm giving you PR, not political, advice about how to take the work the FBI has already done and better present it to the public to assuage their current misgivings. You need to appoint some prominent people with credibility to do that. It's not like you could have missed that passage where Alsop explains his suggestion; I've mentioned it several times. Does that sound like the idea that led to the WC and how it worked? Today I went on the say that means "Johnson was *not* "convinced" or "bamboozled" by the suggestions made by the likes of Alsop and Rostow to create what became the WC as you have repeatedly asserted without obviously giving the slightest thought to what that means. The WC Johnson created and implemented bore *no* resemblance to the suggestions made by either Alsop or Rostow. Those suggestions did not lead to Johnson's creation of the WC. I have several times asked you to explain where the idea for the actual WC and how it worked to frame Oswald, came from if not from Johnson. Once again you've not answered. Instead you have repeatedly tried to confuse things by suggesting that what Alsop and Rostow suggested convinced Johnson to create what became the WC. That's obviously false. What else did I convey? it wasn't what you suggest--that Johnson let himself be rolled because he wanted the WC all along. I hope I've just explained why that makes no sense. Besides which, I have repeatedly told you that Johnson did not get rolled as you describe. It boggles the mind that you have failed to grasp that and are still making that claim as if its what I think. Here's a "what else" that you missed or at least made no comment about. While the WC had nothing to do with the suggestions of Alsop and Rostow, it did precisely fit the kind of investigation the killers wanted in order to get away with the murder and blame someone else. Did you notice that? Hmm. Maybe if you gave some thought as to who so organized the WC, where its ideas came from, it would give you a clue to start figuring out how the planning of the murder worked and who was involved.

Are you really claiming Manchester and Bishop are God's final word on what happened? If they didn't know about it, it didn't happen? Johnson's order was received by the security detail that by then worked for him. Valenti says he was sitting next to Johnson on the plane when he gave the order. I don't have Valenti's book which is a relatively mindless puff piece for Johnson. I am depending on Pat Speer's research for what the book says. If you think Pat might be mistaken, you might want to take it up with him. You haven't given me any reason to doubt him. I will say this. Johnson had plenty of time between when Kennedy was declared dead and the body left Parkland for the plane, to have communicated his order to his security staff to take the body. As I understand it, he had something like half an hour at Parkland with his detail, after the death was declared, before he left for the plane. Believe it or not, some believe Kennedy died instantly from the head shots and it is possible Johnson was confident he was president before the official announcement of JFK's death. Maybe he gave a provisional order and then what Valenti heard was him following it up once he was on the plane. It's clear that Valenti was confident enough in what he heard that he published it in his book defending Johnson. The security detail did not have the authority on its own to snatch the body. Only Johnson could have given the order.

Thanks for the response. I have a few comments/questions. Gen LeMay told LBJ he needed to be sworn in on the the plane before it took off from Dallas? No, the swearing in was Johnson's idea as one way to delay departure while waiting for Kennedy's body, and Jackie, to arrive at the plane. He knew he was already president under the Constitution; the swearing in was window dressing and could be done anytime later. But he insisted on the ceremony and that it had to be done by local judge Sarah Hughes who had to be located and retrieved. The length of the delay while most around him were urging him the get going is an indication that he knew he was in no danger of being attacked by JFK's killers. The secret service, which now worked for Johnson, had no authority on their own to snatch the body from Dr Rose. But saying they had an order from the president probably was enough to stop Rose's resistance. Jack Valenti, who was sitting next to Johnson on the plane, has documented that Johnson gave such an order. Are you clear about what the JCS, acting by themselves, wanted from the murder? Did they get it? How could they be sure Johnson would go along with, protect them, and give them what they wanted, when he became president?

Actually, Jim, the best source for the fact that Johnson ordered the body to be brought to him on the plane is Jack Valenti, a close aide, as you know, who was sitting next to Johnson when he says Johnson gave the order. Valenti called it Johnson's first decision as president, and "a good one". That's in Valenti's book defending Johnson, A Very Human President, 1975. Valenti was certainly not trying to bash or incriminate Johnson. While has waiting for the body Johnson ordered some seats removed to make room for it. The first time I heard of Valenti's revelation was from Pat Speer here a few months ago, citing the Valenti book. No one I know of claims Jackie objected to the body being sent to the plane for transporting it to Washington. She simply made clear she was not going to be separated from it. Johnson probably knew that, or was told that, and taking the body also gave him the opportunity to have her come to the plane as well. He wanted her present for the photo of the swearing in ceremony we have all seen. A symbol of continuity. Rose as a different story. He had jurisdiction over the autopsy. He did object, apparently strenuously, to Johnson taking the body. There may have been as scuffle in the hallway. But I think the words "we have an order from the president" by the security detail now working for Johnson would have ended any real resistance.

I didn't ask you to say again what your take is, but rather what did you disagree with that Hornberger said that underlies your different take. I found little or nothing to disagree with him about.

JD: Roger, I never said that the results would have been different if LBJ had not given in. RO: What a strange comment to direct at me, since I've made it clear I don't believe Johnson changed his mind in the 5 days between Oswald's death and his announcement of the WC with Allen Dulles as one of the commissioners. What did you mean? JD: Because he still wanted the Texas Court of Inquiry to be supplied by Hoover. But what I am saying is that he and the White House were worked on over this issue. RO: I know what you're saying, Jim. You have done nothing but repeat the same assertions as if they were established facts again and again, while ignoring every counter point I made. Johnson was *not* "convinced" or "bamboozled" by the suggestions made by the likes of Alsop and Rostow to create what became the WC. This was confirmed by Alsop himself when the told Johnsons he was *not* suggesting a new investigative body. Instead, he was offering PR, not legal, advice as to how to best take what the FBI had so far done and sell it to the public. It is further confirmed by the fact that the WC Johnson created bore *no* resemblance to the suggestions made by those two guys. But the WC, as it was constituted and operated, *was* in fact precisely what the planners of the murder wanted as one key to them getting away with it. The WC ignored, altered, destroyed, and lied about key evidence in order to frame Oswald. If that idea for a bogus investigation did not come from Alsop and Rostow, then who or where did it come from? Likewise it's pretty clear that Johnson never preferred a Texas investigation to the WC in Washington he could control by, for example, naming Dulles to ride herd over what the commission did and didn't do. Johnson was nothing if not a practiced manipulator. He had spent his 25 year career in DC up to the that point perfected the skill. When as VP he succeeded Kennedy and people knew some of the things he had done, (including the fact that the very day of the murder there was to be a Congressional hearing into some of his corruption) he knew he would initially be under suspicion of being involved with the murder. He could not afford to be seen as the guy who formed the WC, particularly when it became clear that the commission's task was to not learn the truth, but to conceal it. So he claimed, and made sure his claim was recorded, that he opposed an official investigation in Washington. It was somebody else's idea. Some other important people in Washington. When he claimed to Alsop that he favored a Texas investigation, the reasons he gave were laughably transparent, as I have already explained. Like the killing was a "local murder" jurisdictional to the state. Technically true, but no less disingenuous. This from the guy who ordered JFK's body to be snatched from Dr. Rose, who had jurisdiction over the autopsy, so the autopsy could be controlled in Washington, concealing or distorting evidence that contradicted the killers' Oswald story. Even Alsop had to interject that the victim was the POTUS, sir. Alsop slapped down the Texas idea by explaining to Johnson, as if Johnson was in the 4th grade, that the national implications of the murder were enormous, and he needed to deal with them as the new president. As if Johnson hadn't realized that. I await your considered and thorough response to these points.

I'm not sure, Ben, what part you disagree with or why you think Johnson was out of the loop (would you care to elaborate?) but Hornberger nails many key points. I would add a few things. Johnson's order to snatch the body from Dr. Rose was verified by Jack Valenti, who was sitting next to Johnson on AF1 at the time, in his book defending Johnson, A very Human President. He says the order was the first of Johnson's new presidency, "and a good one". I don't know about the accuracy of the account of the struggle in the hallway with Rose, but Hornberger makes the key point. It was likely settled by the statement Rose couldn't object to: we have orders from the President. Horne was also essential to uncovering the alteration of the Z film and the concurrent destruction of the original, another crucial part of the coverup of evidence.

"Facts mean nothing unless they are rightly understood, rightly related and rightly interpreted." R.L.Long That Alsop and Rostow both suggested to Johnson that he create some sort of body that would help ease the public's distress at what they had seen, are both facts nobody denies. Although you never mention another fact: Alsop said to Johnson he was *not* suggesting the creation of a new Investigative body, but rather some elite individuals who would take what the FBI had already done and better sell it to the public. He was offering PR, not legal, advice, he said. You leave that out because it destroys your claim that Alsop played a major role in convincing Johnson to create *the kind of commission we know the WC was*. The actual WC was exactly what the planners of the murder wanted: an official body set up to find Oswald guilty as the lone assassin, through all kinds of lying about, distortion, destroying, etc. of facts. Where did the idea of the actual WC come from if not from the killers? The WC certainly was not what Alsop, and Rostow was suggesting to Johnson. Do you honestly think the killers would have gone ahead with the murder telling the Oswald story, without giving serious thought to how to control an investigation they knew would happen once they got rid of Oswald? Having the WC come out with the verdict it did was absolutely critical to their getting away with the murder. I've gone on from that idea to say it seems obvious to me that Johnson's implementation of the WC plan was critical to the killers' success and that is one reason the killers would need assurances from him about what he would do after the murder. Other assurances were needed. E.,g., they needed to be sure Johnson would implement some of the major policies Kennedy had been blocking as well. Disagree with that if you want. But can we dispense with the ridiculous idea that the WC and all it did to cover up the murder, was the idea of Washington denizens like Alsop and Rostow? That they poured the idea into that empty vessel, Lyndon Johnson, who had never contemplated it before Rostow talked to him on the Nov. 25?

I think you've gone way overboard with the claim that Johnson was *the* mastermind of the JFKA. Threshold questions: who wanted Kennedy out of the way more, Johnson or Dulles? Who was the more powerful figure in the relevant parts of the government in Washington? Which one had access to a world wide roster of killers? I've said only that both participated in planning the murder. It was a small group of planners that worked together, compartmentalized wherever possible. 61 years later I'm not sure sure it's important to go beyond that until more people become interested and buy into the basics. I for one never said that Johnson asked permission from anyone for what to do after the murder. For one thing, it's axiomatic that a coverup plan was in place before the murder. Not that everything went according to that plan.

Because with the WC Johnson could pick the commissioners. And, as others have said, the public would not have accepted a Texas verdict like they did from a body headed by the ChiefJustice of the Supreme Court. How best to sell the Oswald story was the point. It's true Johnson ran Texas, but how well did he knew Waggoner Carr? How much did he trust him to run a fake commission like Warren and Dulles did. Dulles was a critical piece in the whole affair by keeping scrutiny of the CIA out of the WC investigation.

No. the police were simply told to arrest Oswald. They had the Tippit murder as a proximate reason but that's not the point. The police are like the military, they follow orders; they don't question them. At the time of the arrest, they had no real evidence tying Oswald to the JFKA unless you want to count that Oswald had left the TCBD, as others did, and vaguely matched the description given by a witness. Too flimsy for words. They arrested Oswald without evidence because he was the designated patsy. Before the murder, they had prepared to arrest him because they needed to kill him before he could talk to a lawyer. They could have killed him, then framed him, without arresting him at the theatre, and some believe that may have been the original plan. But it didn't work out that way if it was the plan.

Look, JIm, I'm disagreeing with Robert. Robert, I'll ask you the same question Jim keeps avoiding. If the planners knew an investigating body would be necessary once they got rid of Oswald, and Johnson was going to be responsible for setting it up, how could they have *not* have sought his ideas about it and made sure he was on board with what they wanted? The results of an investigation would be crucial to the success of the whole project. I'll say it again, the murder would not have happened without some idea beforehand about how to control the subsequent investigation and get the result the planners wanted. Johnson did *not* oppose a national commission, no matter what he said to fool you on those calls he taped.. Some sort of investigation was going to happen. He wanted a commission he could control that would make the findings he wanted. That's what he got.

I'm always amused when someone I'm discussing something with tries to cut off further discussion by announcing this will be his last post. In this case, Jim, you couldn't resist twisting the knife by claiming I was becoming a disciple of Robert Morrow as some kind of justification for leaving. I couldn't be expressing my own thoughts. It reminds me of the time when I first broached the topic of Johnson's involvement, you claimed I must have gotten that from "A Texan Looks at Lyndon". Little did you know I was actually around when the book came out and immediately dismissed it as Goldwater type propaganda. When a person announces his departure usually one or both of two things are in play. He has run out of answers and he been resorting to repeating the same points again and again. And/or he is saying the other person, or the topic, or something is no longer worth his time. Looks like both apply here. Your departure at this point is all the more egregious because your endless repeating of the same points is made while repeatedly ignoring the points I posed in opposition. There hasn't really been much of a discussion between us so far. It's a fact that Alsop and Rostow separately suggested to Johnson that he appoint some sort of official body to look into the murder in order to assuage the public's unease. No one disputes that. Though you're also ignoring the substance of their suggestions which, particularly in Alsop's case, bore little resemblance the WC Johnson appointed. In fact, as I said Alsop said to Johnson he was *not*suggesting a new body to look at the case,but merely offering PR, not legal, advice about how to handle the public's misgivings. But those suggestions do*not* establish that that was the first time Johnson heard about the idea or in any way contemplated it. That's obvious isn't it? Your assertion that the first time anyone brought it (an investigative body) up to Johnson "specifically was by Rostow on the 24th" is not only unsupported but surely is palpable nonsense. Set aside Johnson's possible involvement in the planning for a minute. The planners knew that an investigation would be necessary once they got rid of Oswald. How is it possible then that they never gave any thought, before proceeding with the murder, to how to control that investigation to prevent their actions from being revealed. The success of the whole operation literally depended on solving that problem. You agree, I presume, that Johnson created a commission that did precisely what the planners wanted. I've explained the reasons why I think the other planners would need Johnson's input on that point, including assurances from him that he would do his part as the creator of the commission. Agree with that or not, it probably doesn't matter a lot in discussing this point. But to suggest that we got the WC because Alsop and Rostow lobbied Johnson for it, and in the process changed Johnson's mind, who you claim was originally against the idea, is something you haven't established. It's also simply false.

My answers in italics. This line of thought doesn't work, Keven, because in the first instance it contains no reason for Pompeo to push Trump to conceal CIA records, then, based their records he saw, tell Carlson they were in fact involved. Setting aside schizophrenia. KH: I agree with you that such a scenario contains inconsistencies, and is not strictly logical, but human beings are often inconsistent and illogical, particularly when intoxicants are introduced into the picture, such as political power. It is not difficult for me to imagine a situation in which Pompeo dutifully executes his bureaucratic obligation to protect the reputation of his agency in his official capacity as Director of the CIA by discouraging Trump from releasing the records, then brags about it and the reasons why in an unofficial conversation with Tucker Carlson which he specifies to be "off the record." And indeed, "schizophrenic" may very well be an apt description of a CIA Director like Pompeo drunk off his ass on power. RO: But to do what you suggest Pompeo did, he would have to really not care about the CIA or its reputation because he would be damaging it severely by telling Carlson he knows for a fact they were involved in the JFKA. You've introduced the concept that the informant got Carlson to agree that what he was telling him was off the record. What does that phrase mean to you? Does it mean the information is not to be repeated, but could be used by Carlson the further his understanding of the issues? Or simply that the identity of the source will not be revealed. The latter is boilerplate procedure for a journalist and his source so I'm, assuming you mean the former, and that Carlson broke his promise. Do you have any evidence of that? If true that would be grounds for Pompeo's anger and could have justified the call from his lawyer trying to tell Carlson to back away. But I doubt that it is true. Carlson knows that sources are his lifeblood. Blatantly betraying one of them like that, in such a big case, would damage him in the eyes of other sources, probably severely. Carlson is no Assange, who takes the position that even if a source is dead and his death resulted from giving him the information, he will not reveal him as a source. Carlson despises Pompeo, but I doubt he would betray him like that because it would redound on him. Nor would Carlson, at the same time he is revealing what his informant (Tucker in your version) told him confidentially then invite the same person to talk to him about it publicly. The informant must have already requested confidentiality and both he and Carlson knew Carlson did not have to, and would not, reveal his source. As well as anyone Carlson knows confidential sources are the lifeblood of journalism. KH: I agree with you that it would not be fully in keeping with the best principles of journalism, but again, we are dealing with the presence of the intoxicant of power influencing Tucker Carlson at the height of his ascendancy as the most popular host at Fox. Mix into that what I would characterize as Tucker's contempt for Pompeo, and you just might have the formula by which Tucker decided to skate along the margins of journalistic principles in the hope of scoring a big disclosure on his show. After all, Tucker had already made it clear that he was going to maintain the anonymity of his source, and Pompeo was a frequent guest on Fox at the time, so Pompeo could very well have accepted the invitation and made the decision for himself about whether or not to offer more than routine bureaucratic doublespeak on the show. RO: You've got that intoxication of power thing working overtime. I don't think there is any way Pompeo would have agreed to go on Carlson's show to answer Carlson's questions about CIA involvement. Pompeo knew that Carlson knew too much and would not be so easy to intimidate or slough off as other talking heads. It's much more likely Carlson challenged Pompeo to come on his show in order to challenge him about the things his real source had said. Knowing Pompeo would refuse. KH: I question why you are assuming that Tucker would expect Pompeo to refuse his invitation if Pompeo were not the source. That Pompeo refused to appear, and that Tucker made such a big deal out of Pompeo refusing to appear actually seems to me to be more logical if Pompeo were the source, than if he were not. It would not have otherwise been at all unusual for Pompeo to appear and recite the standard justifications for the CIA's position, but something was going on behind the scenes which motivated Tucker to put Pompeo's refusal in the spotlight, and that motivated Pompeo's lawyer to call Tucker to threaten him the very next day. Those two things make a lot more sense to me if Pompeo was the source. RO: Whether or not Pompeo was the source, he would not go on Carlson's show. Carlson's highlighting of Pompeo's refusal was likely because he couldn't resist taking a shot at Pompeo when he had the chance. Carlson did not need Pompeo to tell him about the vulnerability of confidential sources and Pompeo knew that. That wasn't the reason for the call. KH: If Pompeo was the source, then he obviously would have been very distressed by Tucker's story and the spotlight that Tucker had shined on his refusal to appear on the show. It makes perfect sense to me that he would want to communicate the gravity of the situation through his lawyer the next day, even if for no other reason than to get Tucker to lay off of him. RO: I agree this is plausible, whether or not Pompeo was the source. Since I've already wasted so much time on this topic, which I think is of little importance, and to add another element to this, let me tell you what I really think. I doubt that Carlson *had* a source claiming the CIA was involved in the JFKA. He had been covering the story off and on for a few years and knew quite a bit about it, including some of the players. I think he concluded on his own the evidence indicated CIA involvement. He indicated as much, quite subtlely, on the Rogan show by some of his references to evidence about what happened becoming clear to him. Carlson knew claiming the CIA was involved would be a bit startling but could only have so much impact. He would be easily dismissed by the major news orgs and many pundits. But claiming a CIA source had told him that the CIA was involved, based on his intimate knowledge of what is in the records being withheld, would pack a much greater punch, and get much more attention. He was right about that. He was actually taking little risk with this subterfuge. He knew he wouldn't have to reveal his source. In fact most of the corporate media want the story to go away; they don't want to stir it up further by robing it with questions. The story heightened his star, and probably played a role in his firing by Fox. But he has landed on his feet running around the world making news. He talks glowingly about the freedom he now enjoys out from under his Fox bosses. Of course I can't prove any of this. But to me, who is Tucker's source is another useless puzzle distracting researchers from the real work of deciphering the JFKA.

Jim, You've ignored my point and simply repeated what you said before. I'm not going to call your post weird, but you ought to think twice before resorting to such tactics. Ignoring a person's point and simply repeating the same things is not how conversations are supposed to work. My point is, saying Johnson did not want "a blue ribbon commission" is not the right question ask. Who was it that wanted, not just any commission, but the kind of commission the WC was and was able to bring it to fruition? Clearly that was not Alsop or Rostow, whose suggestions to Johnson weren't even on point to what happened. Alsop says right out he wasn't suggesting a new Investigative body to Johnson but rather some people to take the FBI findings already made and better present them. He was, he said, only offering Johnson PR, not legal, advice. Alsop's suggestion had nothing to do with Johnson's ultimate creation of the WC. He did *not* change Johnson's mind In fact, Johnson's mind was not changed at all despite what he claimed. Only the gullible believe he really wanted an investigation in Texas, beyond his ability to name the investigators and control the result, based on the transparently false reasoning he offered Alsop, as I explained. My earlier post left out one other thing he said to Alsop about preferring a Texas investigation: my lawyers tell me the president must not inject himself into "local killings". Could there anything more phony than that? Even Alsop had to remind him that it was the US president who was killed, sir. How unpleasant it is to see you resorting to the old CIA trick to dismiss what I said: I have the facts; you're just theorizing. In fact there was no theorizing involved in what I said. I took facts and deduced their logical connections to reach a conclusion about what happened. You can challenge the facts or the logic but it won't do to claim I was merely theorizing. For example, I assume you accept as fact that the planners of the murder chose Oswald as the patsy to blame and resolved to kill him before he could talk to a lawyer, thus eliminating a trial. Which they did. That meant there would have to be an official investigation. The POTUS had been murdered; it was no small matter. It follows that before the murder, in fact as a condition that must be met in order to go ahead with the murder, the planners must have considered how to do that investigation to give themselves a good enough chance to get away with it. We know as the new president the responsibility fell to Johnson to create and staff that investigation. We know that in the end the WC lied about, distorted, ignored, and destroyed evidence in order to reach a pre-ordained conclusion that Oswald was guilty and acted alone. Absolving the actual killers. The WC's purpose was not to find out what happened, but to conceal it. You don't have to believe that Johnson was involved in this train of events but it seems pretty clear to me that he was not only involved but essential to acheving most of it. If not Johnson, who? Go ahead, Jim, take a whack at that if you disagree.

This line of thought doesn't work, Keven, because in the first instance it contains no reason for Pompeo to push Trump to conceal CIA records, then, based their records he saw, tell Carlson they were in fact involved. Setting aside schizophrenia. Nor would Carlson, at the same time he is revealing what his informant (Tucker in your version) told him confidentially then invite the same person to talk to him about it publicly. The informant must have already requested confidentiality and both he and Carlson knew Carlson did not have to, and would not, reveal his source. As well as anyone Carlson knows confidential sources are the lifeblood of journalism. It's much more likely Carlson challenged Pompeo to come on his show in order to challenge him about the things his real source had said. Knowing Pompeo would refuse. Carlson did not need Pompeo to tell him about the vulnerability of confidential sources and Pompeo knew that. That wasn't the reason for the call.

One other quick answer. When they arrested Oswald at the theatre shortly after the murder, they had no evidence of him killing Kennedy. They arrested him because he was the designated patsy.

It was a good idea to, in your substack article, soften a bit your claim made here that Pompeo was Carlson's source by saying "in all probability", Jim. But the careful reader will notice you offered little or nothing real to support your claim. In particular you avoided the question: why would Pompeo, after having convinced Trump to not release JFK records (that was Pompeo' position, but I think you may be exaggerating his influence) then tell Carlson the CIA was involved in the murder? He knew Carlson well enough to know Carlson would go with that story on his TV show with a big audience. He must have anticipated the outcry that followed, including renewed interest in the CIA as the villain. In short, telling Carlson that would have undercut his position on the CIA and the records. Why would he do that?

Gibson does a good job going through what happened in the 5 days between the death of Oswald and Johnson announcing the WC. He has the timeframe right. He rightly emphasized that until Oswald was killed there would have been a trial, not an investigation. But his conclusion that the WC created to do that investigation was not Johnson's idea, but came from others like Alsop and Rostow is not supported by his article. In his call, Joe Alsop suggests Johnson appoint three jurists, one from Texas, to take the FBI's findings and present them to the public. The Left, he says, will not buy an FBI report and anyway they don't write very well. He specifically says he is "not suggesting an investigative body" to Johnson. Instead he is offering PR, not legal, advice about how to handle the process. Rostow's advice is no more on point. He suggests a panel of distinguished citizens--maybe former Gov Tom Dewey, or Nixon, *but no Supreme Court Justices* because the public has been so shook by the behavior of the Dallas police they are not believing anything. Do either of these suggestions sound like what became the Warren Commission? If not, how did we get the kind of WC we know about, where what happened that day is ignored or distorted in order to frame Oswald. Johnson's initial response to Alsop is a glaringly false attempt at diversion. He doesn't want people to think he is pulling the strings. He says he favors a Texas investigation by the AG there because they have jurisdiction. We can't have outsiders (like him!) telling Texans their integrity is no good. There can be no carpetbag trials. We're not going to haul people from Texas and try them in New York. Reminder: Johnson is the guy who ordered Kennedy's body to be snatched from Dr. Rose. who had jurisdiction in Texas, so he could take it back to DC for a fake autopsy. The real question here is not whose idea it was to create some kind of official body to lay the facts in front of the public. No, the real question is whose idea was it to create a commission for the purpose we know the WC carried out. We know that person or persons wasn't Alsop or Rostow or anyone Gibson mentions in his article. Johnson also knew the public needed to be reassured, but he knew there was more to forming a commission than that. He needed to have confidence that the official investigating body would reach the preordained conclusion that Oswald was guilty and acted alone. Naming the 6 figureheads and Allen Dulles as commissioners was the first step in that process. Hiring only a bunch of lawyers to massage the evidence followed. A little background will help with the question. When the assassinations planners decided to go with the Oswald story but kill Kennedy in a crossfire with multiple shooters, they knew there would be a lot of work to do to obscure that discrepancy, to make their story believable. They planned to eliminate Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer, and they did. That meant there would have to be an official investigation into the murder. They must have worked out a plan for that too before the murder. For much of the important part of the coverup work--control of the body and autopsy, creating the official investigation, etc.--they would have to depend to some extent on the new president, Johnson. They would need some assurances from him on his role in the coverup, as well as his acquiescence to making the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place. They were not going to go ahead with the murder without a plan they had confidence in to get away with it, blame someone else, and get the policy changes they wanted. That means Johnson must have participated in the pre-murder planning. In that process it's likely he developed some ideas of the kind of official investigation that would be needed once Oswald was murdered. The actual Warren Commission that Johnson proposed, for whom he picked the commissioners, and whose perfidy we saw in action, *was* Johnson's idea. It was his solution to the dilemma.

I wouldn't run too, far with this if I was Jeff. First of all, Carlson saying Pompeo's lawyer contacted him to say revealing classified info was a crime was not really much of a revelation. Pompeo himself issued a public statement saying that. He was just sending his lawyer to make sure Carlson got that message, and trying to intimidate him from pursuing the JFKA further. In making your claim, you're ignoring the rest of what Carlson said about Pompeo. He is really sinister, an outlaw, a bad guy who is a criminal in Carlson's opinion. He convinced Trump not to release information the public has a right to now after 61years. Most of all he plotted to kill Assange. Yet everywhere Pompeo goes now he is treated royally, which outrages Carlson. Yet we're supposed to believe Pompeo is the guy who spilled the beans to Carlson that the CIA was involved in the JFKA? Which Carlson immediately went with on his show, creating considerable interest in the murder. Don't you think the guy who told that to Carlson should have suspected Carlson would do that with the information? Doesn't compute that it was Pompeo does it? Whether or not you believe Carlson that Pompeo was the central figure getting Trump to withhold JFK records. The interview was not the first time Carlson had called Pompeo a criminal. It's interesting to contrast Carlson's view of Trump, who he likes despite his flaws Carlson recognizes, with Pompeo who he has no compunctions saying publicly he despises.

I disagree with your assessment of relations at the time between the SU and Cuba, between Krushchev and Castro, that underlies your comments. The Soviets "got what they wanted out of Cuba " when the US removed the missiles it had in Turkey? You think that's why put them in Cuba, with nuclear warheads! in the first place? Have you heard about the Bay of Pigs? And the constant attempts to kill Castro? Krushchev and Castro were in constant contact. It was Krushchev who convinced Castro that he could talk to Kennedy, and those talks were just starting when Kennedy was murdered (another reason for the murder). As the mortal threat to Castro from the US continued unabated, Castro was agitating for more protection from the SU. Cuba was a great prize in the Western Hemisphere for Krushchev. Castro was to become an important figure internationally. Krushchev agreed to the missiles hoping they would give Castro some breathing room and be a deterrent to the US. To resolve the crisis Kennedy realized he had to offer more than just his assurances he would not try to invade Cuba again. Even if sincere, it would not bind future presidents. That's why he agreed to quietly, unannounced, remove the missiles in Turkey, which were of little value to the US anyway.