Cowardly Democrats Allowed the Cover-Up to Occur

[Jonathan Cohen]

52 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

What would you consider 'actual evidence'?

And BTW, I consider my statement an assertion...

What do you think of this article?

https://inbroaddaylight.wordpress.com/2021/05/17/what-if-someone-such-as-bob-dylan-is-an-experiment-an-hypothesis-for-an-alternate-reality/

 

I think it's ludicrous, paranoid drivel, and I'm surprised any rational person would take seriously the notion that Bob Dylan is some kind of government-programmed, propaganda-spewing automaton. Let me guess: were his Christian rock albums an attempt to confuse and de-politicize his baby boomer audience?

[Pamela Brown]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I think it's ludicrous, paranoid drivel, and I'm surprised any rational person would take seriously the notion that Bob Dylan is some kind of government-programmed, propaganda-spewing automaton. Let me guess: were his Christian rock albums an attempt to confuse and de-politicize his baby boomer audience?

Your opinion. You are entitled. I think you are mistaken. 

Following your line of thinking, how do you explain Infidels?

[Jonathan Cohen]

53 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Your opinion. You are entitled. I think you are mistaken. 

Following your line of thinking, how do you explain Infidels?

"Explain" it how? It's an album. Of songs. And music. Do you think there are some kind of coded, propaganda messages in it designed to help kill foreign leaders? My mind is actually blown that you might believe something this absurd. 

[James DiEugenio]

18 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Jim, can you please elaborate. 

RON, just take a look at what the last three posts are.

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

RON, just take a look at what the last three posts are.

Thank you.  I was being facetious.  You know by now from a few of my posts over the last few years I get a little sarcastic sometimes.

[Michael Griffith]

Look at the Kennedy family today. Where are they? Why aren't they helping to fund research efforts into JFK's death? Why aren't they talking about any of the historic disclosures and new research that have emerged over the last 10-20 years? RFK Jr. is the notable, lone exception. The rest of the family seemingly could not care less about the issue. If you want to experience a gag reaction, go to the JFK Presidential Library and Museum website and see what the site offers about the assassination. 99% of the site's material on the assassination accepts the lone-gunman theory. If you search for "HSCA" on the site, you get no results. 

Or, let's go back to 1967-1968 during the Jim Garrison investigation. Where was the Kennedy family? Where were RFK and Teddy? Teddy said and did nothing to help. Nor did RFK. In fact, whenever RFK commented on Garrison's noble effort, he made comments that helped those who were trying to sabotage Garrison. Garrison made many mistakes and sometimes made unfounded claims, but we now know that he was on the right track. Given the obstruction and outright sabotage that Garrison had to endure, it is a wonder that he managed to uncover as much evidence as he did. 

Again, my complaints about Democratic cowardice are not intended to be partisan. The Republican record on the case is even worse; it is downright shameful. What progress that was made on the case was made largely thanks to Democrats. But Democrats could and should have done much more than they did, and they could and should have done it much sooner. 

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Look at the Kennedy family today. Where are they? Why aren't they helping to fund research efforts into JFK's death? Why aren't they talking about any of the historic disclosures and new research that have emerged over the last 10-20 years? RFK Jr. is the notable, lone exception. The rest of the family seemingly could not care less about the issue. If you want to experience a gag reaction, go to the JFK Presidential Library and Museum website and see what the site offers about the assassination. 99% of the site's material on the assassination accepts the lone-gunman theory. If you search for "HSCA" on the site, you get no results. 

Or, let's go back to 1967-1968 during the Jim Garrison investigation. Where was the Kennedy family? Where were RFK and Teddy? Teddy said and did nothing to help. Nor did RFK. In fact, whenever RFK commented on Garrison's noble effort, he made comments that helped those who were trying to sabotage Garrison. Garrison made many mistakes and sometimes made unfounded claims, but we now know that he was on the right track. Given the obstruction and outright sabotage that Garrison had to endure, it is a wonder that he managed to uncover as much evidence as he did. 

Again, my complaints about Democratic cowardice are not intended to be partisan. The Republican record on the case is even worse; it is downright shameful. What progress that was made on the case was made largely thanks to Democrats. But Democrats could and should have done much more than they did, and they could and should have done it much sooner. 

 

Again - In RFK’s shoes, please outline the steps you would have taken that would have yielded a different outcome. 

In case you aren’t aware, RFK got a bullet to the brain in 1968 at almost point blank range, because he ran for president. 

[Benjamin Cole]

57 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Look at the Kennedy family today. Where are they? Why aren't they helping to fund research efforts into JFK's death? Why aren't they talking about any of the historic disclosures and new research that have emerged over the last 10-20 years? RFK Jr. is the notable, lone exception. The rest of the family seemingly could not care less about the issue. If you want to experience a gag reaction, go to the JFK Presidential Library and Museum website and see what the site offers about the assassination. 99% of the site's material on the assassination accepts the lone-gunman theory. If you search for "HSCA" on the site, you get no results. 

Or, let's go back to 1967-1968 during the Jim Garrison investigation. Where was the Kennedy family? Where were RFK and Teddy? Teddy said and did nothing to help. Nor did RFK. In fact, whenever RFK commented on Garrison's noble effort, he made comments that helped those who were trying to sabotage Garrison. Garrison made many mistakes and sometimes made unfounded claims, but we now know that he was on the right track. Given the obstruction and outright sabotage that Garrison had to endure, it is a wonder that he managed to uncover as much evidence as he did. 

Again, my complaints about Democratic cowardice are not intended to be partisan. The Republican record on the case is even worse; it is downright shameful. What progress that was made on the case was made largely thanks to Democrats. But Democrats could and should have done much more than they did, and they could and should have done it much sooner. 

 

MG-

I share your sentiments, but you have to remember, the security state controlled all the evidence, and the M$M consensus was the JFKA research crowd was a bunch of nuts.

The Kennedy family may have known more than ordinary citizens...but maybe not, and likely not in the early years after the JFKA. 

Ponder:

The Warren Commission essentially became a prosecutorial body, targeting LHO. 

The WC---

1. Only presented evidence it wanted to.

2. Only interviewed the witnesses they wanted to.

3. Controlled the narrative.

4. Even an earnest press had little choice but to repeat WC findings and narratives, at least initially. You can't report on evidence that does not exist (in the record) and you can't report on an alternative narrative that does not exist. LHO did not have defense counsel. The fact that the M$M was complicit and compromised added to the soup. 

5. WC appeals were made to emotion and patriotism, thus the branding of LHO as a leftie-loser-loner.  Jack Ruby was not mobbed up, a tough guy but a nice guy who took care of his girls when louts went too far. Small mention was made of Secret Service lapses.  

6. There was no judge reviewing WC proceedings, trying to at least maintain a level playing field. 

BTW, this is also the same format as the 1/6 committee, and we can expect similar results--the ones intended by the prosecution. 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

BTW, this is also the same format as the 1/6 committee, and we can expect similar results--the ones intended by the prosecution. 

 

Nonsense. Nearly all the witnesses have been Trump loyalists and they have all testified against Trump. Even at least one of Trump's kids (his daughter) testified against him. The ones who haven't testified won't testify... likely because it will incriminate them.

 

[James DiEugenio]

That is what so interesting about those hearings.

Trump employees in the WH and DOJ are the most potent witnesses against him.

People like Cipallone, Herschmann, and Barr have just devastated what Pierson called the Crazies--Eastman, Rudy G and Powell.  But yet, Trump ended up siding with the latter.  Probably because every claim made by the Crazies ended up being exposed as false.  And the hearings go over this.  How the DOJ investigated the claims and found them wanting.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is what so interesting about those hearings.

Trump employees in the WH and DOJ are the most potent witnesses against him.

People like Cipallone, Herschmann, and Barr have just devastated what Pierson called the Crazies--Eastman, Rudy G and Powell.  But yet, Trump ended up siding with the latter.  Probably because every claim made by the Crazies ended up being exposed as false.  And the hearings go over this.  How the DOJ investigated the claims and found them wanting.

Jim-

 

To be sure, there is nothing like-able about Trump.

But the 1/6 format is a show trial, not a real trial, executed for PR purposes---as the 'Phants will do when they run Congress again. That is politics.

The 1/6 show trial has strongly suggested there is a connection between the 1/6 occupation of the Capitol and Trump---yet the federal indictments indicate no evidence at all connecting Trump to the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers.  

Unexplored is why there was scant security at the Capitol on 1/6, and even that stood down. 

The idea that the Secret Service was involved in attempting a coup strikes me as a very low odds proposition. 

Remember, we live in a panopticon state, with nearly all communications track-able, and many extremist groups heavily embedded with informants. 

True, Trump held court with people like Eastman, Rude G and the Powell lady (private lawyers, with no administrative powers whatever)...but they they were proposing dubious Constitutional means for altering the election, and in the end (and only under duress) Trump listened to his more sane advisers.

Thought crimes are not crimes.  

The strongest case against Trump is the phone calls he made to Georgia, IMHO. They were recorded, and strike me as certainly immoral. How the law plays out I do not know. 

Remember the JFKA-Watergate lessons...the truth comes out slowly, with very few good guys revealed, even on investigative bodies (especially investigative bodies with partisan biases up the wazoo, and ties to the national security state). 

In a few days I will have an interesting story for K&K. It may not be your cup of tea, and I understand that.  It explains connections between Quested and the Council on Foreign Relations, and the very dubious claims there were 300 Proud Boys in a contingent on 1/6. 

It is a window into how a show trial works. 

As I always say, I would be happy for Trump to be brought into a court of law, with stout and funded defense counsel, and let the chips fall where they may. If Trump goes to prison after a trial, fine by me, If he is exonerated or skates, so be it. 

A public show trial is not the right way to get at the truth.

But DC is a vulgar town, where political advantage is coin of the realm. Truth? Not on the agenda. 

[Sandy Larsen]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Thought crimes are not crimes.

 

What about not ordering his thugs to stand down for three hours as they commenced with their violent attack on the Capitol? If that is not a crime, it should be.

What about Trump's anti-Pence tweet that he sent at the very moment his thugs were seeking him out, saying that they planned to execute him? (Not to mention building a gallows for the event.) If that is not a crime, it should be.

I find your lackadaisical attitude toward these things astonishing.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What about not ordering his thugs to stand down for three hours as they commenced with their violent attack on the Capitol? If that is not a crime, it should be.

What about Trump's anti-Pence tweet that he sent at the very moment his thugs were seeking him out, saying that they planned to execute him? (Not to mention building a gallows for the event.) If that is not a crime, it should be.

I find your lackadaisical attitude toward these things astonishing.

 

Sandy--

I have been reading federal superseding indictments re The Proud Boys.

It appears (and only appears) the Proud Boys, and their Afro-Cubano leader Enrique Tarrio, were the most active, organized group in the 1/6 scrum. There is a NYT video that holds the Proud Boys were perhaps (and only perhaps) instrumental in the breach of the Capitol. All were un-armed. However, their numbers in the actual Capitol scrums appear to be limited to 20 or less, judging from the NYT video. Of course, only a handful have been charged. 

The federal indictments, nor any other investigation, indicate no connection between White Housers and the Proud Boys. Enrique Tarrio has been a federal informant in the past, and was let out of prison on Jan. 5, btw. 

A second group, the Oath Keepers, also showed up at the Capitol un-armed but seem to have played a lesser role in events, unless you count Ray Epps, one-time Arizona chapter Oath Keepers leader.  

The other participants inside the Capitol scrum, all except two un-armed, appear to not have been part of groups, except perhaps in two or threes. Many were women, and many appear mentally challenged (see Mr. Buffalo Horns). 

So...who was Trump supposed to order to stand down? The Proud Boys do not report to him. 

A more-interesting question: Who told the Capitol Police to stand down? That has been captured on video. The security lapses on 1/6 defy the imagination. 

Try reading this: 

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC&RulesFullReport_ExaminingU.S.CapitolAttack.pdf

Anyways, we disagree. That's OK. I am just advising keeping an open mind on this one. The M$M is not a fount of truth, nor the 1/6 committee. 

And thought crimes are not crimes. 

 

 

[Ron Ege]

Ben, thanks.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC&RulesFullReport_ExaminingU.S.CapitolAttack.pdf

Over the decades, 'tis been my experience that this type of USG "examination" and/or investigation, in the end, amounts to a "gloss over/nothing to see here" conclusion.  The end goal may be typically and more often than not, correctly, viewed by those familiar with the bureaucracy's age-old M. O., as pretty much a CYA/"protect the guilty" determination - for all agencies involved.

Of course, there is always a plethora of recommendations which is held up as the future prevention of any recurrence of the examined/investigated occurrence/happenstance.  Said recommendations usually include writing/revising more laws, regulations, action plans, etc., as well as hiring additional personnel (agents, technicians, analysts, administrative support, etc.), and purchasing more equipment/supplies/vehicles, and on and on. 

And how often do we witness anyone that was in a high-level government position during and was involved in the situation "gone south", ever suffer any consequence, other than being offered a lateral position or allowed to retire early?

Me thinks that a reincarnated Paul Harvey, would probably never be able to say, "And now you know the rest of the story."

 

[Martin Blank]

who had the power?