Opinion: The WHY of it

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

I also think that the Mafia style killings of Roselli and Giancana were further indicators of their involvement.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about them. So there IS a bit of circumstantial evidence against the mob. It appears that Giancana was killed to prevent him from talking to the Church Committe and to warn Roselli not to, which he didn't. But then Roselli DID testify for the HSCA. And it seems that he was killed for doing that.

Of course, this should be of no surprise given that the mafia was definitely doing work for the CIA as far as killing Castro was concerned. I don't think it would be much of a stretch to learn that the mafia also assisted the CIA in killing Kennedy.

If that's the way it went, I would still call it a CIA plot.

 

[Gil Jesus]

On 6/25/2022 at 10:56 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Are you aware that Trump tried to get Mike Pence and several other people to do illegal things in order for him to stay in power?

 

I'm aware that Trump was receiving bad advice from a lawyer named Eastman. This lawyer Eastman was telling Trump that Pence had the power to overturn the election. This was not true. The truth is that once the states certify the election, there's nothing the Federal Govenment can do. Only if a state has a problem or sends two different groups of electors can Congress investigate.

My problem with Pence was that less than a week before Congress was to certify the election, he was telling voters in Georgia that "come this Wednesday ( Jan 6th ) we will have our day in Congress", implying that he intended for Congress to look into the election results.

I saw this speech and that was the impression I got.

If he were "resisting" pressure from Trump to do something illegal, I wonder why he was telling American voters a week before the election that he intended to do exactly that.

When he didn't, the people went looking for him.

If he knew that what Trump was asking him to do was illegal and he resisted that, then he lied to the American people and for that, I don't think he could get elected dog catcher 2024.

Pence, as much as anybody, has responsibility for what happened on January 6th. You don't make promises to the people that you either can't keep or have no intention of keeping.

January 6th showed that people are getting fed up with politicians and their false promises.

If he thinks he's a viable candidate in 2024, he's delusional. He'll never get more than 4 % of the Republican vote. At best he finishes third behind Trump and DeSantis. He'll get the RINO and maybe some never-Trumpers, but that's a small percentage of the GOP electorate.

His political career is over. The never-Trumpers may see him as "brave" for standing up to Trump, but the people see him as an opportunist who turned on the President and made a promise to the people and likewise turned on that.

That's just my opinion, FWIW.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I'm aware that Trump was receiving bad advice from a lawyer named Eastman. This lawyer Eastman was telling Trump that Pence had the power to overturn the election. This was not true. The truth is that once the states certify the election, there's nothing the Federal Govenment can do. Only if a state has a problem or sends two different groups of electors can Congress investigate.

My problem with Pence was that less than a week before Congress was to certify the election, he was telling voters in Georgia that "come this Wednesday ( Jan 6th ) we will have our day in Congress", implying that he intended for Congress to look into the election results.

I saw this speech and that was the impression I got.

If he were "resisting" pressure from Trump to do something illegal, I wonder why he was telling American voters a week before the election that he intended to do exactly that.

When he didn't, the people went looking for him.

If he knew that what Trump was asking him to do was illegal and he resisted that, then he lied to the American people and for that, I don't think he could get elected dog catcher 2024.

Pence, as much as anybody, has responsibility for what happened on January 6th. You don't make promises to the people that you either can't keep or have no intention of keeping.

January 6th showed that people are getting fed up with politicians and their false promises.

If he thinks he's a viable candidate in 2024, he's delusional. He'll never get more than 4 % of the Republican vote. At best he finishes third behind Trump and DeSantis. He'll get the RINO and maybe some never-Trumpers, but that's a small percentage of the GOP electorate.

His political career is over. The never-Trumpers may see him as "brave" for standing up to Trump, but the people see him as an opportunist who turned on the President and made a promise to the people and likewise turned on that.

That's just my opinion, FWIW.

 

I agree with you that Pence's career is over. BTW I didn't know that he promised Trump's supporters that the so-called illegitimate votes would be dealt with on January 6. That of course was a lie.

Anyway, so you blame Eastman for the fact that Trump tried to pressure Pence into illegally throwing out the electoral votes.

What about when Trump called the secretary of state of Georgia and tried to pressure him into finding enough votes -- 11,780 -- for him to win the state? Doesn't it bother you that Trump would ask someone to invent votes?

 

[Pete Mellor]

19 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Where was the line of separation between the mob and the CIA. Multiple notable figures were allegedly helping with Mongoose and to get Castro. Essentially to me, its a hierarchy and the CIA sits above the mob in power. You might say in Italy the Cosa Nostra ran the show for a long time and assassinated leaders, in contrast the USA was the most powerful country on earth in the 60’s, by killing a president you might have set in motion a purge that would have meant the end of the Mafia, especially with RFK as attorney general. They’d have had to have word that Johnson, the CIA and FBI would not turn on them. Its kind of a big thing killing the president of the USA, something you’d wanna be 100% certain of getting away with. Of course all of these factions had motivations to kill JFK. 

 

19 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Essentially to me, its a hierarchy and the CIA sits above the mob in power.

So does the presidency, the FBI, the Military etc.  However, back in '63 Joe Public was totally unaware of the Cuba/CIA/Mafia links. Were these links reasons for silence?  As Hoffa stated after the assassination , "RFK is just another lawyer now."  Yes, many factions had motivations to see the back of JFK, but the ONLY proof that exists of a faction that stated its intentions in this direction were Mafia.  Trafficante in '62 declared that JFK would be hit before the '64 election.  Also in '62 Marcello was reported to be plotting against JFK, and 'having an outsider to do the job so that his lieutenants would not be implicated'.  Again, Hoffa had a plan for a lone gunman firing on a convertible in a Southern city.  Johnny Roselli informed the Senate that Ruby was "one of our boys" and had been delegated to silence Oswald.  So, if Oswald had to be silenced, I wonder what his role was and what he knew.  The DPD maintain that his fingerprints were on the snipers nest boxes and the Carcano.

Lets face it, armed with these snippets of solid leads in a murder case, where would any investigative agency direct their probe?  Same can be stated in relation to the RFK assassination.  In both cases the official investigations were so apathetic, some would say corrupt, that a purge was the very least of the Mafia concerns.

As I have posted above, I cannot discount the likes of CIA or FBI having some ties with these plots, either witting or knowledge through the grapevine, but we only have suspicions and no solid courtroom proof of involvement in Dallas or L.A., which can't be said of organised crime. 

[Benjamin Cole]

16 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I'm aware that Trump was receiving bad advice from a lawyer named Eastman. This lawyer Eastman was telling Trump that Pence had the power to overturn the election. This was not true. The truth is that once the states certify the election, there's nothing the Federal Govenment can do. Only if a state has a problem or sends two different groups of electors can Congress investigate.

My problem with Pence was that less than a week before Congress was to certify the election, he was telling voters in Georgia that "come this Wednesday ( Jan 6th ) we will have our day in Congress", implying that he intended for Congress to look into the election results.

I saw this speech and that was the impression I got.

If he were "resisting" pressure from Trump to do something illegal, I wonder why he was telling American voters a week before the election that he intended to do exactly that.

When he didn't, the people went looking for him.

If he knew that what Trump was asking him to do was illegal and he resisted that, then he lied to the American people and for that, I don't think he could get elected dog catcher 2024.

Pence, as much as anybody, has responsibility for what happened on January 6th. You don't make promises to the people that you either can't keep or have no intention of keeping.

January 6th showed that people are getting fed up with politicians and their false promises.

If he thinks he's a viable candidate in 2024, he's delusional. He'll never get more than 4 % of the Republican vote. At best he finishes third behind Trump and DeSantis. He'll get the RINO and maybe some never-Trumpers, but that's a small percentage of the GOP electorate.

His political career is over. The never-Trumpers may see him as "brave" for standing up to Trump, but the people see him as an opportunist who turned on the President and made a promise to the people and likewise turned on that.

That's just my opinion, FWIW.

Gil Jesus---

I appreciate your open-minded apolitical take on the JFKA, and on current events in which there may be Deep State involvement. 

I may disagree with you, or agree with you on some specifics. So what?

But I will always agree with your decision to look at important civic matters with much objectiveness as we flawed humans can muster.

Let the chips fall where they may. 

To me, set aside politics. At first glance, we would be naive to accept the Warren Commission, or the 1/6 Committee reports. 

Where is "the rest of the story"? 

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Gil Jesus---

I appreciate your open-minded apolitical take on the JFKA, and on current events in which there may be Deep State involvement. 

I may disagree with you, or agree with you on some specifics. So what?

But I will always agree with your decision to look at important civic matters with much objectiveness as we flawed humans can muster.

Let the chips fall where they may. 

To me, set aside politics. At first glance, we would be naive to accept the Warren Commission, or the 1/6 Committee reports. 

Where is "the rest of the story"? 

The most dangerous thing you can do in these forums is state your opinion. This is why I try to avoid that and concentrate on the evidence in the case. In a moment of weakness, my intent to show what was going on at the time of JFK and how similar it is to our current situation has turned this thread into debate over Donald Trump.

But to answer your question, "the rest of the story" lies in American history from the end of WW I to the assassination. IMO, only when people can understand what America was, what it stood for and what its values were, then one can understand WHY Military Intelligence, the Dallas Police and Secret Service would have allowed the CIA's Cubans ( some of whom were double agents working for Castro ) to assassinate the President and why the FBI covered up that fact afterwards.

Consider this:

Four Cuban gunmen had travelled to Chicago kill the President on November 1st, 1963. The President was supposed to attend an Army-Navy game but a military coup in South Vietnam caused the President to cancel his plans. Two of those gunmen were allegedly detained by the Secret Service and two got away. To my knowkedge, they never were identified.

Food for thought: could two of those gunmen have been in the car with Rose Cheramie ?

[Gil Jesus]

On 6/25/2022 at 5:48 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I agree with you that Pence's career is over. BTW I didn't know that he promised Trump's supporters that the so-called illegitimate votes would be dealt with on January 6. That of course was a lie.

Anyway, so you blame Eastman for the fact that Trump tried to pressure Pence into illegally throwing out the electoral votes.

What about when Trump called the secretary of state of Georgia and tried to pressure him into finding enough votes -- 11,780 -- for him to win the state? Doesn't it bother you that Trump would ask someone to invent votes?

 

 

Yes it would bother me if ANY politican would stoop to asking a state official to "invent votes" for him. You can't manufacture votes, that's illegal and to think he would have the audacity to do that on a phone call with witnesses, including lawyers listening, is hard to believe.

Especially in light of his phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky and his subsequent impeachment for that. I find it hard to believe that he would seriously suggest anything illegal over the phone to ANYBODY after that mess.

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The most dangerous thing you can do in these forums is state your opinion. This is why I try to avoid that and concentrate on the evidence in the case. In a moment of weakness, my intent to show what was going on at the time of JFK and how similar it is to our current situation has turned this thread into debate over Donald Trump.

But to answer your question, "the rest of the story" lies in American history from the end of WW I to the assassination. IMO, only when people can understand what America was, what it stood for and what its values were, then one can understand WHY Military Intelligence, the Dallas Police and Secret Service would have allowed the CIA's Cubans ( some of whom were double agents working for Castro ) to assassinate the President and why the FBI covered up that fact afterwards.

Consider this:

Four Cuban gunmen had travelled to Chicago kill the President on November 1st, 1963. The President was supposed to attend an Army-Navy game but a military coup in South Vietnam caused the President to cancel his plans. Two of those gunmen were allegedly detained by the Secret Service and two got away. To my knowkedge, they never were identified.

Food for thought: could two of those gunmen have been in the car with Rose Cheramie ?

You can always state your opinion or insights, and that's fine by me. Whether or not I disagree, I appreciate the effort you have made you deliver an informed comment. 

Why people take umbrage at other opinions or insights...well, they are limited, and want to remain so. 

Carry on, I say. 

The two gunsels with Rose Cheramie may well have trailed after JFK for a while. 

That said, if LHO was involved in the JFKA, and I suspect he was in some manner, that suggests people LHO worked with, or who used him, had some connection to the CIA, or at least the Miami Station of the CIA. 

IMHO, the JFKA had very few witting participants pre-event. Lots of complicity afterwards. 

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

 

So does the presidency, the FBI, the Military etc.  However, back in '63 Joe Public was totally unaware of the Cuba/CIA/Mafia links. Were these links reasons for silence?  As Hoffa stated after the assassination , "RFK is just another lawyer now."  Yes, many factions had motivations to see the back of JFK, but the ONLY proof that exists of a faction that stated its intentions in this direction were Mafia.  Trafficante in '62 declared that JFK would be hit before the '64 election.  Also in '62 Marcello was reported to be plotting against JFK, and 'having an outsider to do the job so that his lieutenants would not be implicated'.  Again, Hoffa had a plan for a lone gunman firing on a convertible in a Southern city.  Johnny Roselli informed the Senate that Ruby was "one of our boys" and had been delegated to silence Oswald.  So, if Oswald had to be silenced, I wonder what his role was and what he knew.  The DPD maintain that his fingerprints were on the snipers nest boxes and the Carcano.

Lets face it, armed with these snippets of solid leads in a murder case, where would any investigative agency direct their probe?  Same can be stated in relation to the RFK assassination.  In both cases the official investigations were so apathetic, some would say corrupt, that a purge was the very least of the Mafia concerns.

As I have posted above, I cannot discount the likes of CIA or FBI having some ties with these plots, either witting or knowledge through the grapevine, but we only have suspicions and no solid courtroom proof of involvement in Dallas or L.A., which can't be said of organised crime. 

One of the things that is so hard to interpret is whether these quotes from JFK, the mob, or whistleblowers/truthers are authentic, plain made up, distorted or just said to shape public opinion. 

It is possible that organised crime could have infiltrated the secret service in regard to the JFKA. It is possible that the mob could have had an expert in hypnosis prime and condition Sirhan Sirhan for his role in the RFKA. Both seem highly unlikely to me, Pete. 

All factions accused have motivations. Do they all have the means? Is it rational for them all to undertake the killing of a president? What are the consequences of their actions? 
 

It seems entirely plausible that if the CIA or a faction of, organized and killed JFK that they’d factor in layers of deflection, so that they’d be the last accused? Cubans, mafia, communists etc were all groups that stories could be run about that would leave the public in such a confused state, that the truth or clarity would be lost in a sea of irrelevance. We all focus here on who fired the bullets and how. The bigger picture is; who stood to gain the most from JFK’s death? 
 

PS
The Mongoose stuff came out a long time ago, perhaps not honestly or authentically. Why are they still burying what they knew now? 

[Pete Mellor]

On 6/26/2022 at 11:33 PM, Chris Barnard said:

It is possible that organised crime could have infiltrated the secret service in regard to the JFKA. It is possible that the mob could have had an expert in hypnosis prime and condition Sirhan Sirhan for his role in the RFKA. Both seem highly unlikely to me, Pete. 

Chris, Most folk would agree with you on your comment above.  I've had similar doubts myself for a long time.  Things don't add up do they.  Yet, if memory serves me , I'm recalling a statement made by John Witten, I think was to the HSCA about Jim Angleton.  He stated that Angleton was a very secretive guy, that CIA couldn't cope with him, that he had influence on the Warren Commission as well as J. Edgar Hoover, AND Angleton had Mafia ties & would never double cross the mob!!

I do not doubt that CIA manipulated LHO & could be the main operatives to provide the 'patsy' in concert with Cosa Nostra, all with the agencies plausible deniability.  All I'm saying is that mostly, after sixty years, the only solid proof of Dallas that we have, is the involvement of criminal elements, through the evidence against Jack Ruby.

& while we're at it, the RFK assassination was handled after the event by Manuel Pena who was involved in CIA's 'Department of Dirty Tricks' featuring assassination techniques.  How ironic that Pena was in charge of evidence for 'Special Unit Senator'.  The other side of the Ambassador hit was stiff with organised crime elements.  Were these two killings done by the real 'secret team'?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:01 AM, Gil Jesus said:

As far as Trump asking to "invent" votes, I believe the term he used was "find me" votes and it depends on what he meant by "find".

 

I used the word "invent" because by that time everybody knew that there was no evidence of large-scale voter fraud. Trump got that information from fake news. His lawyers could never prove it to the courts because there was no evidence to back it up.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

Chris, Most folk would agree with you on your comment above.  I've had similar doubts myself for a long time.  Things don't add up do they.  Yet, if memory serves me , I'm recalling a statement made by John Witten, I think was to the HSCA about Jim Angleton.  He stated that Angleton was a very secretive guy, that CIA couldn't cope with him, that he had influence on the Warren Commission as well as J. Edgar Hoover, AND Angleton had Mafia ties & would never double cross the mob!!

I do not doubt that CIA manipulated LHO & could be the main operatives to provide the 'patsy' in concert with Cosa Nostra, all with the agencies plausible deniability.  All I'm saying is that mostly, after sixty years, the only solid proof of Dallas that we have, is the involvement of criminal elements, through the evidence against Jack Ruby.

& while we're at it, the RFK assassination was handled after the event by Manuel Pena who was involved in CIA's 'Department of Dirty Tricks' featuring assassination techniques.  How ironic that Pena was in charge of evidence for 'Special Unit Senator'.  The other side of the Ambassador hit was stiff with organised crime elements.  Were these two killings done by the real 'secret team'?

Hi Pete,

I think some want to see the Mob as on a level or above the CIA in dominance. Or that the CIA just had a few bad apples knocking about here and there. 

For me, there is no doubt that the CIA was the more powerful, more sophisticated, better funded organisation in the 1960’s. The CIA has played an instrumental role in shaping events around the globe, including many regime changes and assassinations. If it came to the crunch, it would be the CIA that could wipe out every mob leader in a blink. It would he the FBI who could orchestrate a witch hunt against mob figures. Yes, Angleton, Dulles etc wouldn’t want a contract on them, but the mob would be insane to undertake such a thing, as I would spell their end. It was the mob who was working for the CIA in Mongoose. It seems clear the order of dominance and who is subservient to who. 

It used to be that in Holywood movies that the CIA were the heroes. In recent decades they are presented as the good guys with some bad apples but, ultimately the virtuous prevail. This shapes public perception. What if we were to view the CIA as the KGB or Mossad? As a ruthless organisation willing to justify any abhorrent act to accomplish goals, operating directly against democratic values? Have you read John Perkins “confessions of an economic hitman?” 
 

i see the mob of the 1960’s as an extortion racket, organised crime, but, the one thing that could collapse them is shooting presidents. Unless of course they had a tacit agreement that they’d be left alone in the aftermath. The CIA is the octopus with tentacles everywhere, one of those locations was the mob. The CIA are simply an organisation that couldn’t be refused. 
 

The CIA had organised many hits, they had the expertise and psychological warfare tools to cover it up and deflect. If shooters were mafioso, cubans, righties etc, it would have provided layers of confusion and cover for the CIA. Look at the De Gaulle attempt where he writes to JFK accusing the CIA. At first glance its assumed its just the OAS again. They are experts in this field. These latin American killings rarely ever were laid at the door of the CIA but, with insiders and a more nuanced perspective it looks like it was all US foreign policy, as all the guys removed were against the US dominating their resources and political domain. 
 

The bigger picture for me is that the CIA is the villain or a sophisticated surgical tool. Yet many I think still want to see them as virtuous or having merit. The way the British love James Bond / MI6. The common denominator is how they are marketed.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Chris Barnard

[Gil Jesus]

31 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

The bigger picture for me is that the CIA is the villain or a sophisticated surgical tool. Yet many I think still want to see them as virtuous or having merit. The way the British love James Bond / MI6. The common denominator is how they are marketed.

That's exactly right. One man's hero is another man's villain.

[Jonathan Cohen]

On 6/26/2022 at 9:01 AM, Gil Jesus said:

As far as Trump asking to "invent" votes, I believe the term he used was "find me" votes and it depends on what he meant by "find".

He may have talking about disallowing questionable ballots, because that would have the same effect as if they had found votes for him. This is what the phone call was all about--disallowing questionable ballots, not inventing ballots for him. Or he could have just been talking about a recount.

You've got to be kidding me. NOBODY on the receiving end of that call walked away from it thinking that Trump was politely asking them to "disallow questionable ballots." It is 100% clear that he wanted and expected the Georgia officials to illegally add votes to his total in that state.