MSNBC goes there

[Matt Allison]

The CIA, Joannides, the whole enchilada. The entire panel as angry as we are. I imagine it will be available online sometime today.

[Cliff Varnell]

Even Michael Beschloss gave the WC a “probably correct” instead of his normal LN spiel.

[Matt Allison]

Yes, Beschloss really opened up on a few things there, despite what I imagine was intended to be a reserved appearance.

Segment was 15 minutes long, hopefully the whole thing gets online.

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Yes, Beschloss really opened up on a few things there, despite what I imagine was intended to be a reserved appearance.

Segment was 15 minutes long, hopefully the whole thing gets online.

 

Whose show was it on?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Whose show was it on?

 

Morning Joe.

[Cliff Varnell]

15 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Morning Joe.

They’re replaying it now.

[Bob Ness]

28 articles in mainstream media in the last 24 hours according to Bing. Decent coverage - Salon, Reuters, CBS, NBC etc.

 

[Vince Palamara]

On MSNBC now!

[Matt Allison]

Couple different segments today; here is the first one:

 

[Douglas Caddy]

Jefferson Morley:

 

"They Released All the Records We Needed to See--Except the Records We Needed to See" (substack.com)

Edited December 16, 2022 by Douglas Caddy

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

28 articles in mainstream media in the last 24 hours according to Bing. Decent coverage - Salon, Reuters, CBS, NBC etc.

 

Maybe I just missed it, but this is the first time I've seen this one.

Letter to Biden Explains Why the CIA Wants to Withhold Parts of JFK Files (msn.com)

[Bob Ness]

42 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Maybe I just missed it, but this is the first time I've seen this one.

Letter to Biden Explains Why the CIA Wants to Withhold Parts of JFK Files (msn.com)

They were saying a justification was going to be included but not according to the way the law specified which is the beef. They are (I believe) supposed to justify the redactions or withholding with specific reasons for every document and not "groups".

Quote

"CIA never engaged Oswald," the spokesperson said. "CIA information regarding Oswald, including Oswald's visit to Mexico City from 27 September to 3 October 1963, was included in prior releases. There is no new information on this topic in the 2022 release."

The CIA has (almost) never acknowledged anyone's involvement (who wasn't a formal employee) so their claim is meaningless. The meaning of "engaged" is also a weasel word which can mean a few different things. i.e. "We never "engaged" him, we "attached" him as he was a Naval employee!" They deserve absolutely NO BENEFIT OF DOUBT about the subject. 

That said there are agreements we have with the UK and other countries that restrict information according to their timelines, not ours. There are a lot of redactions in documents I've seen due to the fact that permission has to be sought from our intel partners who have declined. Or have been asked to decline. That's the rub on that one.

[James DiEugenio]

Beschloss is full of it when he says the reason RFK was quiet in 1966 was the CIA Mafia plots.

RFK was loaded for bear on that one,, as Lisa Pease has pointed out.

As Talbot shows, Bobby was keeping a low profile on the issue since he knew that the only way he could reopen the case was if he won the presidency.  And he was not going to let the issue obstruct his way to the office.  But in 1967 there were communications between RFK, his emissaries and New Orleans.  I mean RFK called Chetta about Ferrie's death.  Before he died, Roger Feinman told me that Bobby was talking to a doctor in NYC about his brother's autopsy. 

This is one of the things that the MSM evidently will not tread on: that RFK knew what the real story was,

BTW, Weisberg actually warned Bobby about keeping quiet.  When RFK was killed, he said something like, "Never was a prophet less happy with the confirmation of his prediction."

[James DiEugenio]

Is this the only one MSNBC did?  Because most of the people on the panel did not speak.

[Bob Ness]

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Beschloss is full of it when he says the reason RFK was quiet in 1966 was the CIA Mafia plots.

RFK was loaded for bear on that one,, as Lisa Pease has pointed out.

As Talbot shows, Bobby was keeping a low profile on the issue since he knew that the only way he could reopen the case was if he won the presidency.  And he was not going to let the issue obstruct his way to the office.  But in 1967 there were communications between RFK, his emissaries and New Orleans.  I mean RFK called Chetta about Ferrie's death.  Before he died, Roger Feinman told me that Bobby was talking to a doctor in NYC about his brother's autopsy. 

This is one of the things that the MSM evidently will not tread on: that RFK knew what the real story was,

BTW, Weisberg actually warned Bobby about keeping quiet.  When RFK was killed, he said something like, "Never was a prophet less happy with the confirmation of his prediction."

Let's face it these TV experts are only as good as time allows and Beschloss isn't going to know more than he read yesterday. I think he's a Presidential biographer who does like John Adams and Teddy R and isn't going to know the nuances of the topic, especially to your degree. But hey. He's already paid for so what the heck.