Cowardly Democrats Allowed the Cover-Up to Occur

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, that is what the early evidence indicated. The evidence had Oswald traveling to Mexico City (by car with some associates, I believe), meeting with alleged KGB assassination chief Valeriy Kostikov, and getting paid a $6500 up-front fee for the assassination.

This was covered up right away, and then the LBJ administration proceeded to pin the assassination on Oswald alone.

Of course the whole Mexico City thing was a false flag operation to be used as a pretense for war or an invasion of Cuba. (Some say it was a "virus" used to trigger the coverup.) Oswald probably wasn't even there. The "Oswald" in the consulates was clearly an imposter, as even Hoover said.

 

 

P.S. I don't believe that the fake Cuba/Russia/Oswald plot was designed to have Oswald as a shooter. I believe it was designed to have Oswald as the go-between guy between Russia/Cuba and an assassination team in the U.S. That is why there were two guns (a Carcano and a Mauser) in the TSBD. And why Oswald was allowed by his CIA handler to be outside observing the p. parade.

I don't believe that the plan to cover up multiple shots and shots from the front was part of the the CIA's assassination plot. The CIA WANTED the government to believe the assassination was a conspiracy. Rather, it was the coverup artists -- the FBI (on behalf of the LBJ administration) -- who wanted to removes shots from the front.

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Excellent points by Ron Bulman and Pat Speer.

I would add that those suspecting CIA and FBI involvement in JFK's murder must surely have feared Murder, Inc.

Jackie Kennedy didn't want Bobby to run in '68, because she feared he would be murdered.

And look what happened to Hale Boggs.

 

Addendum:  On the subject of alleged Democratic "cowardice" about the JFK assassination, let's recall that Hale Boggs, the Democratic House Majority leader, was always skeptical about the FBI's Warren Commission evidence, as was Richard Russell.

    In fact, Boggs caused quite a stir in April of 1971 when he denounced J. Edgar Hoover on the House floor, after learning that Hoover had long been spying on Warren Commission critics.

     Boggs' airplane disappeared en route from Anchorage to Juneau, Alaska in October of '72.

     I read somewhere that, prior to his death, he claimed to have some shocking news about JFK's murder.

Edited August 18, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Pamela Brown]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Excellent points by Ron Bulman and Pat Speer.

I would add that those suspecting CIA and FBI involvement in JFK's murder must surely have feared Murder, Inc.

Jackie Kennedy didn't want Bobby to run in '68, because she feared he would be murdered.

And look what happened to Hale Boggs.

 

The "Murder Inc" may be connected to Bob Dylan's behind-the-scenes maneuvering. And those deaths may be MMF(s).

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

The "Murder Inc" may be connected to Bob Dylan's behind-the-scenes maneuvering. And those deaths may be MMF(s).

Uhh, what? "Murder, inc" is a reference to the mafia. I believe it was first used in connection to Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky's activities in New York, where they knocked off their rivals in a very business-like fashion. I don't see how the use of this term can be traced back to Dylan, who wasn't even born at the time. 

[James DiEugenio]

Some amending needed.

Cooper, Boggs, and Russell were all Democrats.  By fall of 1964, they all suspected there was more to it than just Oswald.  They were outmaneuvered each step of the way by the Dulles/McCloy/Ford faction. Culminating in the stunning final executive session meeting where Russell was going to make his case for the record.  Clearly, the other side was ready for this and completely faked him out. There is no record. But Russell, as we try to show in the film, had his doubts from the beginning. That is why he called in Scobey and she kind of ran her own inquiry on the side, even Burt Griffin admitted this.  Later on, when Boggs learned that Hoover had kept files on the Commissioners and critics, he really exploded and made that sensational comment blasting Hoover.

The Gonzalez/Sprague dispute is not that simple.  I wrote about this in The Assassinations at length.  When Sprague read that article, he wrote back to Wecht that this was the best summary of his tenure he had seen.

The CIA and FBI knew that, off the Yablonski case, there would be no controlling Sprague.  So they had to find a COINTELPRO way to undermine him.  This was made to order when Downing left. Gonzalez had never run a committee before and did not have the stature Downing did in Congress. So what happened was that plants were enlisted within the committee to create, and then enlarge, a phony dispute between Sprague and Gonzalez.  And Gonzalez fell for it.  I actually named names in my article.  For they admitted it after. (pp. 60-64)

Gonzalez did not fire Sprague.  He tried to fire him.  But the committee overruled him and he stepped down.  But the fact that Sprague had forced out a chairman, that was too much for congress.  So the word was out that the HSCA would not survive if Sprague was still there.  So he resigned.  Tanenbaum took over temporarily.  And we ended up with Stokes and Blakey.  It was Dodd who was in charge of the search committee for a new chief counsel.

Edited August 18, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Pamela Brown]

41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Uhh, what? "Murder, inc" is a reference to the mafia. I believe it was first used in connection to Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky's activities in New York, where they knocked off their rivals in a very business-like fashion. I don't see how the use of this term can be traced back to Dylan, who wasn't even born at the time. 

Your opinion. You are entitled.

LBJ referenced a "Murder Inc in the Caribbean". I think he was talking about things happening at that time. 

And I think Bob Dylan has been involved in behind the scenes maneuvering that has resulted in MMF(s) since 1961.

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Your opinion. You are entitled.

LBJ referenced a "Murder Inc in the Caribbean". I think he was talking about things happening at that time. 

And I think Bob Dylan has been involved in behind the scenes maneuvering that has resulted in MMF(s) since 1961.

Yes, LBJ was comparing what the CIA was doing with the help of the mafia--trying to kill Castro--to the actions of the mafia in the 30's. 

Are you really suggesting that Dylan--a college drop-out wanna-be Woody Guthrie--was somehow involved? 

[Jonathan Cohen]

8 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

LBJ referenced a "Murder Inc in the Caribbean". I think he was talking about things happening at that time. 

And I think Bob Dylan has been involved in behind the scenes maneuvering that has resulted in MMF(s) since 1961.

Just so I'm clear, what exactly is it that you're implying here? That Bob Dylan has been involved in political assassinations?

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Why does it have to be a partisan problem?  Wasn't it everyone's problem? 

If a Republican President were to be assassinated, shouldn't concern for something like that be non partisan? Who cares what party?

 

I agree. Everyone should have cared about JFK's death, regardless of their party affiliation. My point is that JFK's family and friends, those who knew him best, did not have the courage to stand up and challenge the shameful lone-gunman myth. Of all people, they should have been the loudest and fiercest in their rejection of the lone-nut tale.

RFK, Jackie, Teddy, Dave Powers, Ken O'Donnell, Pierre Salinger, Admiral Burkley, Lem Billings, etc., should have publicly denounced the lone-gunman myth. RFK was the attorney general, yet he played no role in the investigation--he did not even try. If enough of JFK's family and friends had forcefully challenged the Warren Report, this would have made an enormous difference and probably would have created such a firestorm that the cover-up would have collapsed.

Similarly, when the HSCA came around, with Democrats holding huge majorities in the House and Senate and controlling the White House and the Justice Department, Richard Sprague was fired and the CIA was allowed to mislead and obstruct the HSCA investigation. Where was Teddy? Where was Jimmy Carter? Where was Henry Gonzalez? Where was Jackie? If these people and others had taken stronger stands to help the HSCA, history could have been changed.

Where were JFK Jr. and Caroline when they became adults? They showed little or no interest in challenging the lone-gunman fable. 

I do recognize that most of the WC critics, as well as most of those who called for new investigations, were Democrats, but nearly JFK's family and friends declined to forcefully challenge the lone-gunman myth. 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

Talbot's book Brothers explains this in two places.

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Well, there's that old proposition that RFK knew he couldn't do anything about a real JFK investigation until and only if he was President.

His enemies were too powerful to take on without the full power of the Presidency.

As President he could have placed his own people to head the CIA, FBI, AG and so many other powerful positions to then get the kind of control and power he needed.

Obviously, that plan failed. I totally get that RFK and other family members were devastated, and I could excuse them if their inaction and silence had only lasted a few weeks. But, once they saw the FBI's propaganda blitz for the lone-gunman theory, they should have shaken off their grief and loudly protested the emerging myth. Certainly, at the very latest, when the Warren Report was released, with its obscene disregard for the truth, they should have spared no effort to challenge the report in the public arena.

I'm reminded of Mary Pinchot Meyer, who truly loved JFK. She recognized early on that the emerging tale was a brazen falsehood, and when the Warren Report was released, she became determined to challenge it. Yes, that's what got her killed. However, if many/most/all of JFK's family members and friends had boldly and loudly challenged the government's myth, the conspirators would have been unable to silence them, and the cover-up probably would have collapsed. If nothing else, such determined, vocal opposition from JFK's family members and friends would have drastically changed the public debate on the issue. 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Some amending needed.

Cooper, Boggs, and Russell were all Democrats.  By fall of 1964, they all suspected there was more to it than just Oswald.  They were outmaneuvered each step of the way by the Dulles/McCloy/Ford faction. Culminating in the stunning final executive session meeting where Russell was going to make his case for the record.  Clearly, the other side was ready for this and completely faked him out. There is no record. But Russell, as we try to show in the film, had his doubts from the beginning. That is why he called in Scobey and she kind of ran her own inquiry on the side, even Burt Griffin admitted this.  Later on, when Boggs learned that Hoover had kept files on the Commissioners and critics, he really exploded and made that sensational comment blasting Hoover.

The Gonzalez/Sprague dispute is not that simple.  I wrote about this in The Assassinations at length.  When Sprague read that article, he wrote back to Wecht that this was the best summary of his tenure he had seen.

The CIA and FBI knew that, off the Yablonski case, there would be no controlling Sprague.  So they had to find a COINTELPRO way to undermine him.  This was made to order when Downing left. Gonzalez had never run a committee before and did not have the stature Downing did in Congress. So what happened was that plants were enlisted within the committee to create, and then enlarge, a phony dispute between Sprague and Gonzalez.  And Gonzalez fell for it.  I actually named names in my article.  For they admitted it after. (pp. 60-64)

Gonzalez did not fire Sprague.  He tried to fire him.  But the committee overruled him and he stepped down.  But the fact that Sprague had forced out a chairman, that was too much for congress.  So the word was out that the HSCA would not survive if Sprague was still there.  So he resigned.  Tanenbaum took over temporarily.  And we ended up with Stokes and Blakey.  It was Dodd who was in charge of the search committee for a new chief counsel.

Amen.

A point to ponder: The Deep State can manipulate Congressional investigations and select committee hearings. 

 

[Richard Price]

39 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

If nothing else, such determined, vocal opposition from JFK's family members and friends would have drastically changed the public debate on the issue.

Michael, I agree with much of what you write.  However, I think that RFK had strong suspicions and was trying to get to the bottom of what had happened.  However he no longer had free reign to investigate and knew he was being watched by the very people (some of whom) he suspected of being behind the killing.  He tamped down some of the initial (pardon the pun), rush to judgement because he, as a lawyer knew not to get out ahead of what he knew or could prove.  Because of his well known animosity with both LBJ and Hoover (among others), he knew that overstepping in any way would be interpreted as part of this preexisting bad blood and deflected.  He understood the axiom, cut the head off and the tail will not harm you.  As Clint Eastwood would later say, "A man's got to know his limitations" and Robert Kennedy understood his limitations very well.  He also understood the implications to national security, the operation of government and the implications on international policy and standing.  Just my opinion, based on what I have read, watched and heard of his life.

[Pat Speer]

34 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Amen.

A point to ponder: The Deep State can manipulate Congressional investigations and select committee hearings. 

 

You realize that in this case the "Deep State" was the President, right? And not some three letter organization... 

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

Everyone knows that the FBI handled about 80 per cent of the inquiry for the WC. The Secret Service did most of the rest. Recall, Hoover said Oswald did not shoot JFK coming up Houston because of the trees there?  Recall Hoover going to the racetrack on Saturday?

Everyone knows the CIA lied it head off about Mexico City. And the WC could not even interview Duran when they got there.  From what I have read, and I am pretty current on Mexico City,  that was not LBJ who stopped them from doing so.  It was the Secretary of the Interior in Mexico, who later became president.  And it was the CIA who approved of her arrest and looked askance at what they did to her in detention. It was Angleton's office who communicated with the Mexican authorities about her detention and also the escorting of Elena Garro de Paz to a CIA secured hotel room within about 24 hours after the assassination.

Those last two points are very important about Mexico City since they will provide the two poles of argument about what really happened there.

Edited August 19, 2022 by James DiEugenio