Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was Robert Kennedy Blackmailed?


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of my friends was a political adviser to Tony Blair. He once told me that political parties use friendly journalists and other investigators to collect damaging stories about leading figures in other political parties. These are rarely used but instead are traded against each other. In this way leading politicians are protected from these stories. It also makes sure that the only damaging stories that appear are against politicians who belong to small parties without stories to barter or mavericks in the major parties who are not being protected.

We now know that LBJ worked with J. Edgar Hoover to collect information about other politicians. Is it possible that Robert Kennedy was blackmailed into silence after the assassination of JFK? If so, my guess is that it was about RFK’s involvement in the plots to kill Castro.

I was reminded of this “blackmail” strategy when reading an excellent biography of William A. Wallace (American Dreamer). Wallace was President Roosevelt’s most left-wing cabinet minister and it was a great surprise when he selected Wallace to be his running-mate in the 1940 Presidential Election.

During the campaign Paul Block, publisher of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, managed to get hold of some letters written by Wallace to Nicholas Roerich in 1933-34. The content of the letters suggested that Wallace held left-wing views and unconventional opinions on religion. Harry Hopkins, one of Roosevelt’s closest political advisers, contacted Block and told him if he published the letters they would reveal that Wendell Willkie, the Republication Party candidate, was having an affair with Irita Van Doren, the literary editor of the New York Herald Tribune. As a result, Block did not publish the letters.

Wallace’s left-wing views meant that party managers got him removed from the ticket in the 1944 Presidential Election (it was clear that Roosevelt would not live for another four years).

Wallace was appalled by Harry Truman’s drift to the right, especially his decision to be a Cold War warrior and his unwillingness to push for civil rights legislation. In 1948 Wallace took on the might of the Democrat and Republican parties.

Wallace travelled to the Deep South and called for the end of the Jim Crow laws. He was attacked at every point he stopped and made a speech. One of his followers said: "You can call us black, or you can call us red, but you can't call us yellow." Wallace commented: "To me, fascism is no longer a second-hand experience. No, fascism has become an ugly reality - a reality which I have tasted it neither so fully nor so bitterly as millions of others. But I have tasted it."

Glen H. Taylor also campaigned against racial discrimination. In Alabama he entered a public hall through an entrance marked "Colored". He pointed out in his autobiography, The Way It Was With Me (1979): "I was a United States senator, and by God, I wasn't going to slink down a dark alley to get to a back door for Bull Connor or any other bigoted son of a bitch. I'd go in any goddamned door I pleased, and I pleased to go in that door right there." Taylor was arrested and at a subsequent trial he was fined $50 and given a 180-day suspended sentence on charges of breach of peace, assault, and resisting arrest.

However, without the protection of the party machine, the Nicholas Roerich letters were published in the mainstream press and Wallace’s chances of getting elected came to an end.

http://www.spartacus...USARwallace.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/NDglen_taylor.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Is it possible that Robert Kennedy censored himself, without any blackmail by LBJ and Hoover, to keep quiet on certain topics: namely the CIA plots against Castro as well as his own attempts to politically execute Lyndon Johnson?

I am sure RFK thought that one of his enemies had struck first before he could destroy them. And it sure was not Castro because RFK and Jackie were convinced there was a high level domestic plot at work.

And then there is that affair with Robert Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy that David Heymann has described so well. That is another reason to keep one's mouth shut and not attract undue attention.

RFK had a lot of things to cover up and he was focused on his political future not with finding truth in the JFK assassination.

Martin Schotze even goes so far as to describe Robert Kennedy as an accessory after the fact to the murder of John Kennedy because he knew it was a domestic conspiracy yet shirked his duties as Attorney General. I agree: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/schotz.html

RFK was not looking for truth; he was looking for political relevancy.

MARTIN SCHOTZ:

THE ROLE OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY

It is at this point that we can begin to look at the role of the "critical community" in this process, but before I do this I want to examine the role of Robert F. Kennedy.

When I have tried to point out to people that Robert F. Kennedy, in cooperating with the cover-up, became in every sense of the word an accessory after the fact in his own brother's murder, there has generally been an instant recoil. But I want to tell you., that this is not an opinion; this is just a fact. There is no way we can deny this, if we think about it. I'm not talking about why he became an accessory, but the fact that he did is absolutely undeniable. Robert F. Kennedy had a legal sworn obligation to seek out the assassins, and in failing to do so he joined the criminal act of conspiracy with the criminal act of cover-up and sealed the deal. And don't let anyone tell you that it was because he couldn't put two words together after his brother was murdered. I have seen his correspondence with Ray Marcus. And if it were some kind of personal emotional reaction, how is it that none of the people surrounding Robert Kennedy could utter the obvious truth of the assassination? No, Robert Kennedy's cooperation, agonizing and humiliating as it must have been for him, was dictated by political considerations, which led him away from his legal and moral obligation to tell the American people what he knew.

When I start talking to people about this, I hear Robert Kennedy's actions defended with the idea that if he had spoken out he would have been marginalized. And this is important, because maybe that was part of Robert Kennedy's motivation. But I think the person who responds to me in this way is telling me something about his or her own motivation. The person is telling me that in their opinion, the desire not to be marginalized can somehow justify Iying to the public about what you do and don't know about the assassination of the President. I want to say in no uncertain terms this Iying is not only profoundly lacking in morality but is in addition profoundly foolish and is totally indefensible. It was indefensible for Robert Kennedy and it is indefensible for any one of us.

There is no justification whatsoever for Iying to anyone about what you do and don't know about this murder. Quite to the contrary, if telling the truth marginalizes you, then that is the place to be. After all, if enough people are willing to be marginalized, then before you know it, society has developed a different center. This is the politics of truth. But Robert Kennedy wasn't really used to the politics of truth. Instead, he was captivated by the illusory politics of power, influence and access. And I am afraid that many of us are also caught up with such ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday, Chris Huhne, the former energy secretary, admitted lying about a speeding ticket that he blamed on his wife in 2003. That was ten years ago and it is no coincidence that the story was first published by two Tory newspapers, the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail, at a time when he was causing problems for David Cameron in his coalition government. Huhne was also against the Murdoch takeover of Sky (Murdoch owns the Sunday Times). Of course, around that time, the other left of centre politician in the cabinet, Vince Cable, was caught in the Tory supporting Daily Telegraph sting that got him taken off the Murdoch takeover bid and given to the pro-Murdoch Jeremy Hunt.

In both cases they were not protected by their party leader, Nick Clegg. Of course, both men were seen as possible replacements for Clegg as party leader. That would have caused problems for David Cameron and the Tory supporting press.

I have no sympathy for either Chris Huhne or Vince Cable who both deserved exposure. However, what about those Tory politicians who are probably getting up to things far worse than Huhne and Cable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me started on our politicians John.......I have nothing but contempt for most of them.

Especially don't get me started on Andrew Mitchell.

*Deep breath........*

If RFK was blackmailed, then we ought to consider JFK's sexual liaisons as another possible motive. RFK would not have wanted his brother's name, legacy and marriage trashed. Especially if there was any "splashback" onto RFK himself - as in, RFK knew that JFK was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe, and who knows who else? It may have got out that RFK facilitated these arrangements too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important to know if RFK was blackmailed or blackballed into going along with the Warren Commission report even though he knew it wrong.

One way it could have been done was because of the broads, not so much MM as the one who Sinatra introduced him to and who was also screwing Giancana.

Another way was introducing RFK to the JMWAVE officers at the safe house cocktail party, and to the Cuban Commandos at the Everglades base, which RFK must have immediately recalled after learning of JFK's murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

"For what? To recycle all these discredited ideas about RFK and the Castro plots? Which the IG report says the Kennedys had nothing to do with?"

There is no reason to believe the CIA's IG report on the Castro plots. I trust the CIA guys who said Robert Kennedy was breathing down their necks to kill Castro. And I trust the later version of Judy Exner's accounts on the Kennedys and the mafia in the Castro plots.

Cuba policy was a big reason for the JFK assassination. Can you imagine the betrayal the CIA guys felt if and when they found out about JFK's backdoor negotiations with Castro in the fall of 1963? They would say Robert Kennedy has been screaming at us for 2 years to get rid of Castro ... and now look at what his traitor bastard brother is doing?

In their minds it would be easy to justify assassinating John Kennedy. Yes, the Kennedy brothers were involved in the earlier plots to kill Castro. I discount the CIA's IG report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many "attempts" has Castro survived answer all of them

It's almost like he has been protected for over 50 years !.

Did anybody consider wether Castro was put there on purpose

By a friendly nation.

Dead giveaways include the fact that there has been no Russian or Chinese

Communist protection for years .

Will the Russians be returning when the oil is discovered as reported

By a friendly service.

Why are oil outputs reported by the CIA on the google list?.

Perhaps Castro is a "made" man and untouchable?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wtf. Is everyone on happy juice today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...