The KGB and the JFK case

[Steve Thomas]

23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Alright then, who was in Dallas Fort Worth that day?

Was it Mertz or Souetre?

Jim,

 

My personal belief is that it was Mertz, but alas, I can offer you no proof.

 

Steve Thomas

[Paz Marverde]

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

maybe my doing

Not your doing. I simple do not understand LH attitude to scream: "Political agenda!!". To me, news are true or untrue. That's all

[Paz Marverde]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Alright then, who was in Dallas Fort Worth that day?

Was it Mertz or Souetre?

Souètre

[James DiEugenio]

Well, that settles that I guess.

Edited June 12, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

Are you really going to say the OAS never tried to kill DeGaulle?

You cannot be serious.  You can argue about the group's goals at certain times but there was a whole book written about this called Target DeGaulle.

The book enumerated over 30 attempts to kill him and clearly some of those were by the OAS.

I mean the Algeria dispute was an incredibly divisive national issue in France for a long time.  That is one reason why Kennedy made his speech in 1957.  Recall, he said in there that one goal of the USA should be not just to free Africa, but to save the French nation.

I have that book, and no not really suggesting that. I don’t think CIA killed JFK either but I think several were in on it. I don’t know enough about OAS to opine who knew and who didn’t. But I believe DeGaulle and side with him on all of this. 

Apparently SDECE was also factionalized. This is a difficult area to figure out, especially not being able to read French. Same goes for Italian and CMC/Permindex. I’ve been pretty straight generally about the fact that I think Garrison was very close. When Steve Jaffe posted here about being on assignment from Garrison (when RFK was killed) in France interviewing an agent of SDECE my ears perked up. I’ll have to await his book. 

The article from Global Research that started this latest series of posts painted the situation with too broad a brush. 

[Paul Brancato]

As for Souetre, Steve Thomas says he denies being in the USin 1963, but Fensterwald, in an FOIA request about Souetre etc claims that an SDECE agent reported differently - that not only was he here, he visited NO and Dallas and met with Banister and Walker. Clearly the French claim some knowledge then that is hard to prove now, about Souetre, about OAS, and about CMC. I’ve said before I think the endless confusion about Souetre/Mertz and (names slips my mind) another Frenchman or Corsican suspect who might have been in Dallas, and also Lucien Sarti, is deliberate. That, and the efforts to smear Garrison, have put us off the trail of the assassins. Most people reading just roll their eyes and go back to looking at Cubans. 

[Paz Marverde]

9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

hard to prove now, about Souetre, about OAS, and about CMC

No, it can be proved 

[B. A. Copeland]

On 6/13/2018 at 1:20 AM, Paz Marverde said:

No, it can be proved 

Please provide the proof or source? Thanks Paz.

[Paz Marverde]

2 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Please provide the proof or source? Thanks Paz.

It's in Michele Metta's book

[B. A. Copeland]

 

12 minutes ago, Paz Marverde said:

It's in Michele Metta's book

Would it be possible to post an excerpt from the book complete with source?

Edited June 14, 2018 by B. A. Copeland

[Paz Marverde]

4 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Would

Would it be possible to post an excerpt from the book complete with source?

It's an Italian book 

[James DiEugenio]

To get back to the subject of the thread.

Here is another liberal journal calling out Mueller after over one year of this.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/

Please read this carefully as its one of the most accurate summaries I have seen of his inquiry so far.

This whole idea of the" KGB and its active measures" from Bagley is simply not in the evidence that has been submitted as yet.  In fact, if you ask me, Mueller's work so far looks like a way for him to keep his office open. I mean that charge against the t-r-o-l-l farm--which the articles properly contextualizes-- was pretty much silly and will likely come back and bite him on the butt.

Maybe something big will break.  But right now it looks like sound and fury signifying  little.

It tells us a lot about our culture that this is what infests the so called liberal blogs, and not the RFK case.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

To get back to the subject of the thread.

Here is another liberal journal calling out Mueller after over one year of this.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/

Please read this carefully as its one of the most accurate summaries I have seen of his inquiry so far.

This whole idea of the" KGB and its active measures" from Bagley is simply not in the evidence that has been submitted as yet.  In fact, if you ask me, Mueller's work so far looks like a way for him to keep his office open. I mean that charge against the t-r-o-l-l farm--which the articles properly contextualizes-- was pretty much silly and will likely come back and bite him on the butt.

Maybe something big will break.  But right now it looks like sound and fury signifying  little.

It tells us a lot about our culture that this is what infests the so called liberal blogs, and not the RFK case.

 

From the comments:

<quote on>

Harry Piotrowski says:

June 14, 2018 at 12:59 pm

Maté’s essay is neither reportage nor a summary of what we already know. It’s a legal brief declaring his clients’ innocence. It’s the Bart Simpson defense: They didn’t do it. Nobody saw them. You can’t prove a thing. It could have been published in the National Review or read on the air by Fox & Friends.

Maté seeks to punch holes into the evidence. Papadopoulos returns as a coffee boy. Even his wife says so: George had no knowledge of collusion. All he ever did was lie to the FBI. George is innocent and the president should pardon him for the crimes he didn’t commit. And his contact (Mifsud) really didn’t have any connections with the Russians.

Manafort is another innocent victim of Mueller’s witch hunt. All he ever did was work for the Ukrainian president whose interests were diametrically opposed to those of Russia. Really? Yet Maté also describes Manafort as having worked for a “Russia-leaning party in Ukraine.” Which is ist? And yes, Maté acknowledges, in his previous life Kilimnik had been a Russian intelligence agent, but there’s no evidence he retained those ties. In fact, Kilimnik “denies being a Russian agent.” (Trump would have told him to “totally deny it.” That would take care of it.) Kilimnik was merely a translator trying to make an honest living. Understandably, Maté stays away from any discussion of the Manafor-Kilimnik-Deripaska connection, notably for Manaort’s reasons to offer his services – gratis – to run the Trump campaign.

What is one to make of the statement that none of the Trump operatives could possibly have colluded since that “group of clowns” was obviously unworthy of medaling in “the Olympics of Spying.”

Maté writes that the famous Trump Tower meeting had been set up by Goldstone on behalf of his client, the singer Emin Agalarov. Goldstone’s Senate testimony and e-mails paint a much different picture. Goldstone (who thought the whole thing was a bad idea) did it on behalf of the Russian chief procurator, a point Emin repeatedly made, telling Goldstone the meeting must take place.

At first Trump said, no one met with any Russians. Then it was, we might have run into some of them in a hallway to say hello. Then, well, we may have talked in my office. (In a just world, Sessions would already be convicted for perjury.) But hey, Maté writes, Hillary did the same: Her campaign was contacted by the Ukrainian government she had helped to install in power. (The trouble with the source Maté here uses it that it also stresses that the Russian effort was “personally directed” by Putin.)

As for Facebook’s role, Maté shrugs it off, saying the Russians were primarily interested in causing trouble and in financial matters (actually military espionage, something Maté leaves out) and thus no big deal. To wit, Facebook is Mueller’s “weakest link.”

But wait, there’s more....but I’m out of time.

<quote off>

[Paul Brancato]

Agree with Cliff on this one, even though I don’t view Russia as the prime mover of election meddling. The Democrats and the so called liberal tv stations shamefully and stupidly pile on to Russia gate or whatever they call it. The fascists are right here in the good old USA.

[James DiEugenio]

The drive by the GOP to restrict voting was begun several years ago by Karl Rove.  

I think he did this as a result of the Florida result in 2000, where Jeb Bush had to steal the election for his candidate.

And its likely the same thing happened in Ohio in 2004. except by then I think Rove had already put together an idea about how he was going to restrict voting rights.

From then on, its been a staple of the GOP, they have several guys working on it led by this Kris Kobach nut.

 

What I was trying to say though is that the whole like that TG ran about Bagleyian "active measures" and the whole KGB penetration designed by Putin to win the election and the Democratic Party hack etc., that has not panned out yet.  And he has had over a year to reveal it.  Again, maybe he will uncover it, but right now its not there.