Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why Gavin Newsom vetoed Sirhan's parole


Recommended Posts

"Why are the notes by William Manchester on his book The Death of a President still ruled off limits to the public? That book was issued in 1967. And now the Kennedy family gets to influence whether or not Sirhan has served enough time in prison?"

Great point. In my opinion, because this is still very important to the psychology of the nation and world. It would automatically throw the gates open on every large event, certainly on the JFK case at the very least. The public would realize their country had a much bigger issue in the 1960's than hippies or Vietnam. 

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the Kennedy family agreed with RFK Jr and did not give him the easy out of blaming it all on them. I believe it probably wouldn't matter in the end, although it would be much more inconvenient politically for Gavin. I have to imagine that most of the Kennedy family does not wish to lose public "credibility" and their related positions that comes along with that. It takes a hero to speak truth when it costs you potentially everything.

 

 

I believe Newsom is a longtime "youth global leader" WEF puppet.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2006/06/102067/mayor-newsom-and-young-global-leaders-visit-ucsf-mission-bay

In 2017, ironically at the JFK School of Government, Klaus Schwab literally bragged about the youth global leaders "penetrating cabinets" of various countries. In my opinion, in a proper world, the president would do what JFK did to the remaining Dulles family members after he fired Dulles to any WEF "youth global leader" in our country.

https://t.me/RWMaloneMD/1418

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it is about maintaining credibility.

In fact, when Bobby tried to talk about this with Charley Rose, this is what Rory said, very briefly. Its one reason why that video has been suppressed.

From my understanding, the reason the Manchester notes are still hidden is because of some rather negative things Jackie said about LBJ.

Here is my question, if that is correct: Join the club.  Who the heck has not said these kinds of things about LBJ since?  And we know what Bobby and Jackie said to the Russians about the guy already.

Anyway, let us hope Sirhan's lawyer can mount an effective case.  And she gets a good judge.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

"Why are the notes by William Manchester on his book The Death of a President still ruled off limits to the public? That book was issued in 1967. And now the Kennedy family gets to influence whether or not Sirhan has served enough time in prison?"

Great point. In my opinion, because this is still very important to the psychology of the nation and world. It would automatically throw the gates open on every large event, certainly on the JFK case at the very least. The public would realize their country had a much bigger issue in the 1960's than hippies or Vietnam. 

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the Kennedy family agreed with RFK Jr and did not give him the easy out of blaming it all on them. I believe it probably wouldn't matter in the end, although it would be much more inconvenient politically for Gavin. I have to imagine that most of the Kennedy family does not wish to lose public "credibility" and their related positions that comes along with that. It takes a hero to speak truth when it costs you potentially everything.

 

 

I believe Newsom is a longtime "youth global leader" WEF puppet.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2006/06/102067/mayor-newsom-and-young-global-leaders-visit-ucsf-mission-bay

In 2017, ironically at the JFK School of Government, Klaus Schwab literally bragged about the youth global leaders "penetrating cabinets" of various countries. In my opinion, in a proper world, the president would do what JFK did to the remaining Dulles family members after he fired Dulles to any WEF "youth global leader" in our country.

https://t.me/RWMaloneMD/1418

BlackRock, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, Disney...they run the Donks. You don't have to be a Marxist to think the Donks answer to the globalist donor class, and allied global-security intel and media. 

The ID politics is an effective smokescreen.  See Biden's Supreme Court picks. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This  guy has good hair, and he is a thorough politician who learned from the Kamala Harris paradigm on the RFK case.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/robert-f-kennedy-articles/gavin-newsom-and-sirhan-s-parole

Governor Goodhair indeed.  We need a younger progressive leader.  The grooming is in progress.  The Coiffure, more successful than goofy ass Perry?  Maybe the corporate support is there.  Damn, I still miss Molly Ivins.

Must-Reads: The Late, Great Molly Ivins on Rick Perry – Mother Jones  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Gov. Newsome watched this David Frost interview.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Pete, these are some of earlier interviews I remember. Could you imagine a more collected, lucid account, including articulating his motive, and  aware very comprehensively of all implications of what he had done,  and taking complete responsibility for himself, other than to say that at one point, after a drink, he has no recollection of what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That interview is BS.  As Lisa Pease noted more than once, Sirhan had some of the worst lawyers ever near the beginning of his term.

And they advised him to do this even though its this BS that had been transmuted to him by both psychiatrists, the prosecution and even his own, Diamond.

The truth is that Sirhan really did not get any kind of real factual forensic advice until the late Lynn Mangin arrived on the scene. And she began going through the Sacramento archives and the work of Pasadena criminalist Bill Harper.  

Harper showed that 1.) at least one of the bullets in evidence did not match the alleged weapon 2.) there had to have been shooters from two directions, and 3.) from his position, Sirhan could not have killed RFK.  Later Phil Melanson showed that the whole jets to Israel thing was also BS, even though this was what the shrinks pounded into Sirhan.

Its often said that the WC was a kangaroo court since they provided Oswald no defense.  Sirhan's defense might have been even worse since they stipulated to phony evidence that even the police knew was false, like Wolfer's testimony, and they had another phony exhibit just in case that blew up,  Special Exhibit 10. 

In fact, they blew a case in which it was even easier to prove a conspiracy-- with SIrhan as the fall guy-- than the JFK case.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim from your piece:

Jim:Part of this crusade seems to simply stem from a reaction to RFK Jr’s outspokenness on the issue. 

Then you write this:

Jim:He began speaking out about it back in 2013 during a public appearance with Rory hosted by Charlie Rose in Dallas.

You call RFK Jr.outspoken , but it took him 50 years to out himself.

Why did it take 50 years.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should really know you're being BS'ed when a person who had the power to aid  the JFKAC movement and was silent and did nothing for 50 years is characterized as "outspoken".  Can we call that a "low bar"?

I've seen this recycled Chomsky thread  from Jim Di now for about the third time and always ending with the Marcus story. I told him the likely reason Chomsky doesn't want to get involved and it's very similar to what I've said earlier here about Gavin Newsome.

It looks like Jim is starting to see that the real story of non support is not from Chomsky or Newsome but his emulated Kennedy family itself.

So let's get back on it.

Jim:What is so ironic about this is that, as David Talbot’s book Brothers shows, Attorney General Robert Kennedy never bought the cover story about his brother’s death. In fact, within a week of JFK’s murder both Bobby and JFK’s widow, Jackie Kennedy, wrote a letter to the rulers in Moscow saying that they understood that Lee Oswald was simply a front man, and that President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of a large domestic plot. (Talbot, pp. 32-34)

So we're to believe the Kennedy family is so top down patriarchal, they never knew what suspicions RFK had about the death of his brother,? or they never read Talbot's "Brothers" about Bobby and Jackie's letter to the Kremlin? or simply weren't at all curious about who may have been behind the killing of their Father? That smells to me.  We have records of JFK's correspondence with Khrushchev, but outside of Kremlin conjecture at the time of a conspiracy, we now have no record of RFK and Jackie's letter to  the Kremlin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

You should really know you're being BS'ed when a person who had the power to aid  the JFKAC movement and was silent and did nothing for 50 years is characterized as "outspoken".  Can we call that a "low bar"?

I've seen this recycled Chomsky thread  from Jim Di now for about the third time and always ending with the Marcus story. I told him the likely reason Chomsky doesn't want to get involved and it's very similar to what I've said earlier here about Gavin Newsome.

It looks like Jim is starting to see that the real story of non support is not from Chomsky or Newsome but his emulated Kennedy family itself.

So let's get back on it.

Jim:What is so ironic about this is that, as David Talbot’s book Brothers shows, Attorney General Robert Kennedy never bought the cover story about his brother’s death. In fact, within a week of JFK’s murder both Bobby and JFK’s widow, Jackie Kennedy, wrote a letter to the rulers in Moscow saying that they understood that Lee Oswald was simply a front man, and that President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of a large domestic plot. (Talbot, pp. 32-34)

So we're to believe the Kennedy family is so top down patriarchal, they never knew what suspicions RFK had about the death of his brother,? or they never read Talbot's "Brothers" about Bobby and Jackie's letter to the Kremlin? or simply weren't at all curious about who may have been behind the killing of their Father? That smells to me.  We have records of JFK's correspondence with Khrushchev, but outside of Kremlin conjecture at the time of a conspiracy, we now have no record of RFK and Jackie's letter to  the Kremlin?

I don’t think you’re able to put yourself in the shoes of the family, imagining their perspective, Kirk. That’s why I think you can’t see alternatives. The answers are very human. 

I believe we covered this same topic on a thread a year or so back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2022 at 11:34 AM, Pete Mellor said:

Maybe Gov. Newsome watched this David Frost interview.

 

Thank you for sharing this. Though it represents an opposing view to my own, it provides another perspective. What it should do is cause us to scrutinise all that Sirhan went through between being arrested and this Frost interview. The answers are there. 
 

I’d need to check but, was it Sandra Serrano who witnessed the girl in the polka dot dress escaping through the fire escape? I listened to the FBI/police interviews and they were positively shocking, straight up coercion of a witness. 
 

Dutch psychologist, Joost Meerloo published a book in 1956 called “The rape of the mind.” It describes how prisoners are coerced, and broken down psychologically. With enough time prisoners will sign any confession, admit to things they haven’t done, and not even know why they’ve done it. No physical torture is required, only psychological methods. That was well known and utilised by the time RFK was killed, if we add potential hypnosis to the equation, it’s doubtful whether anything said by Sirhan after the event can be taken seriously or as credible evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

You should really know you're being BS'ed when a person who had the power to aid  the JFKAC movement and was silent and did nothing for 50 years is characterized as "outspoken".  Can we call that a "low bar"?

I've seen this recycled Chomsky thread  from Jim Di now for about the third time and always ending with the Marcus story. I told him the likely reason Chomsky doesn't want to get involved and it's very similar to what I've said earlier here about Gavin Newsome.

It looks like Jim is starting to see that the real story of non support is not from Chomsky or Newsome but his emulated Kennedy family itself.

So let's get back on it.

Jim:What is so ironic about this is that, as David Talbot’s book Brothers shows, Attorney General Robert Kennedy never bought the cover story about his brother’s death. In fact, within a week of JFK’s murder both Bobby and JFK’s widow, Jackie Kennedy, wrote a letter to the rulers in Moscow saying that they understood that Lee Oswald was simply a front man, and that President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of a large domestic plot. (Talbot, pp. 32-34)

So we're to believe the Kennedy family is so top down patriarchal, they never knew what suspicions RFK had about the death of his brother,? or they never read Talbot's "Brothers" about Bobby and Jackie's letter to the Kremlin? or simply weren't at all curious about who may have been behind the killing of their Father? That smells to me.  We have records of JFK's correspondence with Khrushchev, but outside of Kremlin conjecture at the time of a conspiracy, we now have no record of RFK and Jackie's letter to  the Kremlin?

As I recall, Kirk, the RFK/Jackie letter was first exposed by Timothy Naftali in a book written after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the opening of their records. Naftali is a mainstream historian and has never been accused of making crap up. If I recall he followed up on this and tracked down William Walton, the artist friend of RFK and Jackie's who delivered the letter, and he confirmed the story.

Now, that said, I would agree that Newsom's refusing to release Sirhan is by no means a shock. I can't think of a single politician with dreams of higher office who would do such a thing. Kennedy almost certainly would not have done such a thing. It doesn't matter what the truth is but Repubs have successfully painted Dems as soft on crime, and scared of war. So Dems sometimes take the hardcore stance for fear of looking soft on crime or afraid of war. They get bullied into it. Who among us can forget how Reagan and his ilk made Carter look weak when he wouldn't invade Iran to rescue some hostages, when, truth be told, it was Carter who tried to use the military to rescue the hostages and Reagan and his buddies who cut secret sweetheart deals with the Iranians (and even terrorists) in order to effect the release of hostages?

We live in the upside down, where Donald Trump is probably the only politician in America who could release Sirhan and not pay a price. 

Edited by Pat Speer
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...