Michael Clark Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: (even though he knowingly prosecuted an innocent man on a charge of conspiracy to murder the POTUS), So you Slander an elected former DA who was soon thereafter elected to a judgeship. Do you have any proof that Garrison knowingly brought false charges against Clay Shaw? Did Garrison ever admit to falsely accusing Shaw? Was he ever charged and convicted for doing so? David Von Pein sinks to lower and lower depths, methinks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 17 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: David Von Pein sinks to lower and lower depths, methinks! So, you equate a statement of obvious truth is the same as "sinking to lower and lower depths"?? Very curious indeed. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Jim-Garrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 Just now, David Von Pein said: So, you equate a statement of obvious truth is the same as "sinking to lower and lower depths"?? Very curious indeed. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Jim-Garrison You avoide the question... 20 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: So you Slander an elected former DA who was soon thereafter elected to a judgeship. Do you have any proof that Garrison knowingly brought false charges against Clay Shaw? Did Garrison ever admit to falsely accusing Shaw? Was he ever charged and convicted for doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 Hint.... Was Shaw convicted or acquitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, David Von Pein said: Hint.... Was Shaw convicted or acquitted? We're not going to let your pretend that you forgot what you said David. No weasling out of it. This is what you said. 1 hour ago, David Von Pein said: (even though Garrison knowingly prosecuted an innocent man on a charge of conspiracy to murder the POTUS), I That's what you said David. 1 hour ago, Michael Clark said: So you Slander an elected former DA who was soon thereafter elected to a judgeship. Do you have any proof that Garrison knowingly brought false charges against Clay Shaw? Did Garrison ever admit to falsely accusing Shaw? Was he ever charged and convicted for doing so? David Von Pein sinks to lower and lower depths, methinks! What say you David Von Pein? Edited July 15, 2018 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 (edited) You actually want to pretend that Garrison DIDN'T "knowingly" prosecute a man he had to know was innocent? Come now. Let's be realistic. There was as much evidence against Elvis Presley in March 1967 as there was against Clay Shaw. Edited July 15, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: You actually want to pretend that Garrison DIDN'T "knowingly" prosecute a man he had to know was innocent? More weasle-words, but I guess that was close enough. And to be sure, Clay Shaw was not convicted. That does not mean he was innocent. A Jury Jury indicted him. Garrison is being convicted by YOU, and no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: More weasle-words, but I guess that was close enough. More head-in-sand weasel words of your own. What's your opinion of Garrison's "case" against Shaw? Edited July 15, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: More head-in-sand weasel words of your own. What's your opinion of Garrison's "case" against Shaw? I didn't use weasle words, you did. You accused a DA and later elected (not even appointed, ELECTED!) judge of malicious false prosecution. I called you out on that. Following your diversionary questions would let you off the hook. Gambit declined. Edited July 15, 2018 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 Well, there he goes again, with an Olajuwon pivot. Cannot defend his man Myers and he now escapes into completely obsolete charges against Jim Garrison. In the wake of the latest scholarship on Garrison by people like Bill Davy and what the ARRB produced as evidence, that the CIA had destroyed Shaw's 201 file, then this is another loser for DVP. I wrote about 60 pages in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed showing the massive effort to stop JG. Its very simple. If Shaw was innocent, that would not have been necessary. Shaw himself was confident because he knew that Washington would have to come to his aid. That one is a dry well for you DVP. You lost twice tonight, on Myers and this one. But go to sleep and wake up and bang your head against the wall again tomorrow. You are making tons of converts here as you can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, David Von Pein said: You actually want to pretend that Garrison DIDN'T "knowingly" prosecute a man he had to know was innocent? Come now. Let's be realistic. There was as much evidence against Elvis Presley in March 1967 as there was against Clay Shaw. Even if all of that were true, would Shaw not deserve the harassment just for being in the CIA, an organization that actively murders countries full of poor people for money every decade since World War 2? Kennedy realized this trick early on and tried to put an end to it, so he was killed. Clay should have felt lucky for not being slaughtered in the streets just like everybody who enables this world issue. So even if it were targeted harassment over nothing, it was worth it just to get some important information on record before the CIA stole what was left out of his office. Edited July 15, 2018 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 15 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Gentle reader, turn your head to the right, glance down upon your right shoulder-line and casually wave your right arm. Observe the fabric of your pliable upper body garment indent on your shoulder-top. Anyone who claims the opposite occurs is lying, a fraud. Call 'em for what they are. bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 On 7/13/2018 at 3:23 AM, Michael Clark said: I really don't see the value in engaging these guys. They are just given the opportunity to shuck and jive and repeat their falsehoods with subtle nuanced changes (sound familiar?). Meanwhile, worthwhile debate, study, debate and research time is missed. I totally agree. They will never agree with the truth. I have long wondered why so many lone nut advocates come to these forums. I have my own suspicions of course especially about the ones who post all the darn time. It is sad to see so many lone nut voices on a forum dedicated to serious discussion about the assassination of JFK. Last month our 15 year old grand daughter was asked to write a paper on this subject by her lone nut teacher. She did her own research and came to the conclusion that her teacher was dead wrong. She got an A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 On 7/13/2018 at 11:42 PM, Joseph McBride said: David Von Pein, all you do is deny everything, every piece of evidence that doesn't fit the official Warren Commission theory, and defend the transparently phony Warren Report. Your role is that of a professional Conspiracy Denier. It's entirely predictable, and your posts could have been written in late 1964. In case you haven't noticed, this is 2018, and a lot of independent research has been done, and many documents and witness statements have come out that weren't public back then, as well as abundant new evidence. I don't know why people bother arguing with you here. Your role seems to be to take up time and space by reiterating your few simple points and attacking others' arguments through rote denial and to deflect any genuine questioning and investigation. You seem to spend many hours each day at this task. The only interesting question is, Who is paying you? WOW Joe, I posted before I read this. You hit the nail on the head. Bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 Micah: Never grant DVP a naked assumption. The idea that Garrison thought Shaw was innocent is nothing but a manifestation of his malignant imagination. Probably borrowed from like minded warlocks like John McAdams. DVP knows about as much about New Orleans and the Garrison inquiry as I do about astro physics. The reason he said that was because I showed, with examples, that Myers' word was pretty much worthless. So he did his usual pot kettle tap dance in order to move away from that and onto something else. In this case Jim Garrison. And he makes this completely imaginary, unfounded charge. Today, I have some real problems with the record of the ARRB. But they did not do a bad job in New Orleans, and they did try and pursue Shaw's 201 file at CIA. In November of 1996, a man named Manuel Legaspi told Jeremy Gunn that he had discovered that Shaw's 201 file had been destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now