Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why Gavin Newsom vetoed Sirhan's parole


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Was not Ollie North part of that?

He was "A top staffer at a key base in (Operation) Eagle Claw's catastrophic helicopter support operation . . .".  From the first post in the thread below. 

Post number 10, though they are out of order, is interesting as well.  As Regan was being inaugurated someone at the Federal Reserve pressed a button, a bank in London released several billion dollars, and the hostages were released.  Bush to Paris October 18th/19th is also significant..

I'd read Carter ordered Bush to clean out his desk by his inauguration.  I'd never read he fired 600 employees of the CIA.

ex-President Carter's Operation Desert Claw sabotaged? - Democratic Underground

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

Thanks for the source Pat, And your political observations are astute. You can't find a politician who would let this happen, if he could, outside of maybe Trump, whose followers would  forgive him for anything, but even he couldn't muster a majority in an election. It's true all Democrats in executive positions or aspiring to higher office always benefit from "talking tough." Just as JFK, and the "Missile Gap."

As for Newsome: as I've said,  It's because the 1% he'd gain from  voters who wouldn't have voted for him is eclipsed by the 10% of the middle that he could lose.

Similarly as for Chomsky, he was already established in his career before the JFK. Jim's made the JFKAC his entire literary career field of study. It's easy for him to criticize Chomsky because he doesn't have that reputation to lose. The Marcus story sounds like the "fish that got away". Marcus was so convinced he convinced Chomsky of a JFKAC conspiracy. But then to assume that Chomsky was convinced and then  was a coward for not publicly advocating JFK conspiracy is  silly, and kind of vengeful. Marcus can't really know what was going on in Chomsky's head. Beside the whole story with the "magic cabbie" is neither here nor there.. He probably sees it as a rabbit hole,  and as shocking as it may sound here, in light of where his career turned out to be, it was a prudent move.  . 

It's the same with the MSM coverage. There's no "deep state" orders from on high compelling authors to write a certain review about the Stone movie.. In some cases these people have high powered careers , and truly like what they're doing, and maybe weren't exposed to the JFKAC. So why don't we round them up and every politician, and call them "cowards"? Well then let's throw in the Kennedy family who, after all were directly affected and were silent for 50 years! 

I remember the 1964 Democratic convention. And it was as if a great well of the frustration and sadness erupted when Bobby walked out. I've heard it was 20 minutes of uninterrupted applause, I know it was at least 10. A lot of it is the power of martyrdom, but I've never ever seen that kind of response for an American politician, and I suspect I never will.. I thought at the time, this guy could take the American public anywhere! And if he had nothing to hide, which I'm not convinced he didn't, he could even have challenged the  WR findings a few months later and he would have gotten solid public support, but he realized it would be too damaging and divisive for the nation. But there were a lot of people who were still in shock about the JFKA who would have seen a repudiation or a questioning of the Warren Report findings as a a "fighting back". Few of the public would have begrudged Bobby for it, but of course if he was to do it, he'd have to produce clear results.

Certainly a case could be made for silence, and has been made   while Bobby was living. I believe it  it was Talbot who said, he was going to reopen  his brothers case when he became President. I'm not sure of that, or even how successful that would have been..

 But what about the ensuing 40 years? Ok there was still Teddy's career. Was it prudent if Teddy he became President, that he would reopen an investigation into his siblings death. Certainly in 1976, it could have been perfect timing, except of course for his hiding out after Chappaquiddick.

Then there are successive generations of Kennedy politicians . Were they served by being silent about their uncles and Fathers assassinations?. We can disagree but I don't think any case could be made politically that it would be damaging to have publicly stated that they didn't believe the findings of the WR at all!

And If it is true, that Bobby and Jackie were so sure of the cause of JFK's death, that they sent a letter to the Kremlin, and the Kennedy siblings are aware of that. I would say 40 years of silence was not courageous at all.   

Of course we don't know what information was  given by the parents to the Kennedy siblings about what they knew, or suspected. Were they simply told that as good children, if they were approached with questions they were to say they believe the findings of the WC? How was this all was handled in family, and how did  it come to 50 years of silence? Certainly once a sibling has become 30, 40 or 50 years old, such a subject shouldn't be "unspeakable" though it has!  The 50 year silence is a good subject for a book within itself. Maybe for you Jim. Aren't you and RFK Jr.  good buddies?

heh heh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Thanks for the source Pat, And your political observations are astute. You can't find a politician who would let this happen, if he could, outside of maybe Trump, whose followers would  forgive him for anything, but even he couldn't muster a majority in an election. It's true all Democrats in executive positions or aspiring to higher office always benefit from "talking tough." Just as JFK, and the "Missile Gap."

As for Newsome: as I've said,  It's because the 1% he'd gain from  voters who wouldn't have voted for him is eclipsed by the 10% of the middle that he could lose.

Similarly as for Chomsky, he was already established in his career before the JFK. Jim's made the JFKAC his entire literary career field of study. It's easy for him to criticize Chomsky because he doesn't have that reputation to lose. The Marcus story sounds like the "fish that got away". Marcus was so convinced he convinced Chomsky of a JFKAC conspiracy. But then to assume that Chomsky was convinced and then  was a coward for not publicly advocating JFK conspiracy is  silly, and kind of vengeful. Marcus can't really know what was going on in Chomsky's head. Beside the whole story with the "magic cabbie" is neither here nor there.. He probably sees it as a rabbit hole,  and as shocking as it may sound here, in light of where his career turned out to be, it was a prudent move.  . 

It's the same with the MSM coverage. There's no "deep state" orders from on high compelling authors to write a certain review about the Stone movie.. In some cases these people have high powered careers , and truly like what they're doing, and maybe weren't exposed to the JFKAC. So why don't we round them up and every politician, and call them "cowards"? Well then let's throw in the Kennedy family who, after all were directly affected and were silent for 50 years! 

I remember the 1964 Democratic convention. And it was as if a great well of the frustration and sadness erupted when Bobby walked out. I've heard it was 20 minutes of uninterrupted applause, I know it was at least 10. A lot of it is the power of martyrdom, but I've never ever seen that kind of response for an American politician, and I suspect I never will.. I thought at the time, this guy could take the American public anywhere! And if he had nothing to hide, which I'm not convinced he didn't, he could even have challenged the  WR findings a few months later and he would have gotten solid public support, but he realized it would be too damaging and divisive for the nation. But there were a lot of people who were still in shock about the JFKA who would have seen a repudiation or a questioning of the Warren Report findings as a a "fighting back". Few of the public would have begrudged Bobby for it, but of course if he was to do it, he'd have to produce clear results.

Certainly a case could be made for silence, and has been made   while Bobby was living. I believe it  it was Talbot who said, he was going to reopen  his brothers case when he became President. I'm not sure of that, or even how successful that would have been..

 But what about the ensuing 40 years? Ok there was still Teddy's career. Was it prudent if Teddy he became President, that he would reopen an investigation into his siblings death. Certainly in 1976, it could have been perfect timing, except of course for his hiding out after Chappaquiddick.

Then there are successive generations of Kennedy politicians . Were they served by being silent about their uncles and Fathers assassinations?. We can disagree but I don't think any case could be made politically that it would be damaging to have publicly stated that they didn't believe the findings of the WR at all!

And If it is true, that Bobby and Jackie were so sure of the cause of JFK's death, that they sent a letter to the Kremlin, and the Kennedy siblings are aware of that. I would say 40 years of silence was not courageous at all.   

Of course we don't know what information was  given by the parents to the Kennedy siblings about what they knew, or suspected. Were they simply told that as good children, if they were approached with questions they were to say they believe the findings of the WC? How was this all was handled in family, and how did  it come to 50 years of silence? Certainly once a sibling has become 30, 40 or 50 years old, such a subject shouldn't be "unspeakable" though it has!  The 50 year silence is a good subject for a book within itself. Maybe for you Jim. Aren't you and RFK Jr.  good buddies?

heh heh 

A couple of things. It is my understanding that Ted Kennedy got along with Johnson, and did not suspect a conspiracy in JFK's death. But as I recall he also wanted all the records to come out, and approved of the HSCA's re-opening of the case. He probably could have shut it down if he'd wanted as much, but he did not. 

As for JFK's family, they are not a solid block. Robert Kennedy has said he suspects a conspiracy, and that his dad suspected a conspiracy. Caroline and most of her cousins have kept quiet. But one of JFK's cousins, the daughter of Joe Kennedy's sister Mary as I recall, Kerry McCarthy, was a frequent attendee at JFK Lancer conferences, and an outspoken supporter of the research community. She spoke at Lancer on the eve of the 50th anniversary. While the mainstream media was in town to attend an invite-only presentation of historians and blowhards in a blocked-off Dealey Plaza, JFK's actual freakin' cousin was speaking about her cousin's life just blocks away, and no one from the media attended. Lazy, lazy, lazy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2022 at 6:57 PM, Chris Barnard said:

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.

Chris, Just to state this Frost interview also is an opposing view to my belief of the RFK assassination.  Simply based on the autopsy & ballistic evidence alone.

Yes, Sandra Serrano witnessed the 'polka dot' dress girl's escape accompanied by two males, "We've shot Senator Kennedy" and yes LAPD really went to work on her to get a retraction.  See 'The Polka Dot File' by Fernando Faura. Recommended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

Chris, Just to state this Frost interview also is an opposing view to my belief of the RFK assassination.  Simply based on the autopsy & ballistic evidence alone.

Yes, Sandra Serrano witnessed the 'polka dot' dress girl's escape accompanied by two males, "We've shot Senator Kennedy" and yes LAPD really went to work on her to get a retraction.  See 'The Polka Dot File' by Fernando Faura. Recommended. 

Thank you, Pete. I'll take a look at the 'Polka Dot File'.

I took it that you were opposing, my error, I apologise. 

I found the Serrano interview recording totally shocking, it was like listening to an abusive husband bully and gaslight his wife, it really was appalling. I feel like I need to give Lisa Pease book another read, it really was very good. I feel the same, the ballistic and Nogucci's autopsy evidence are compelling. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A couple of things. It is my understanding that Ted Kennedy got along with Johnson, and did not suspect a conspiracy in JFK's death. But as I recall he also wanted all the records to come out, and approved of the HSCA's re-opening of the case. He probably could have shut it down if he'd wanted as much, but he did not. 

As for JFK's family, they are not a solid block. Robert Kennedy has said he suspects a conspiracy, and that his dad suspected a conspiracy. Caroline and most of her cousins have kept quiet. But one of JFK's cousins, the daughter of Joe Kennedy's sister Mary as I recall, Kerry McCarthy, was a frequent attendee at JFK Lancer conferences, and an outspoken supporter of the research community. She spoke at Lancer on the eve of the 50th anniversary. While the mainstream media was in town to attend an invite-only presentation of historians and blowhards in a blocked-off Dealey Plaza, JFK's actual freakin' cousin was speaking about her cousin's life just blocks away, and no one from the media attended. Lazy, lazy, lazy...

Pat, Interesting to hear of some division within the ranks of the Kennedy family. Teddy himself, did not expect a JFKA cons[piracy, but his more privy and powerful brother RFK, did. That strikes me as a little odd. But could be indicative of great discussion and division on the issue. 

I see it here,  Kerry Mc Carthy and brother Kevin.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Kennedy-s-Cousins-are-attending-the-conference-.html?soid=1100889772973&aid=GU1NWldvdW4

Maybe we can hope Jim can further his inroads into the Kennedy clan by using his RFK Jr. ties and parlay a few clan dissidents and stage an intervention of sorts. If anyone can use his connections, Jim can!

No Pressure Jim! A vain hope, I know.  But one can always hope!

******

Pat I don't know if you have Netflix but I know like me, you like historical dramas. Dave, W., Jim and whoever else. Check out Munich: The Edge of War.  Jeremy Irons is excellent as Chamberlain. I've always liked the idea of interpreter movies.

Dave, a bit of a younger, (1938) midwestern type of Hitler. Ehh! I prefer a little bit more of a bull neck. But good dialog.

George Mc Kay, sufficiently young and delicate. August Diehl, one of my favorite Nazis from "Dirty Rotten Basterds" is in it as well.

Enough adjectives, you might check it out.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
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...