George Galloway Chimes in on JFK and Carlson

[James DiEugenio]

Galloway made the finest appearance I ever saw in facing down a senate committee. Magnificent.

 

Here he is on JFK and Carlson

 

[Lori Spencer]

Fantastic! Love George Galloway and Garland Nixon. 
 

Thanks, Jim. 😃 

[Lori Spencer]

When Galloway asked why a right-wing journalist (Tucker) dared report what the mainstream liberal media wouldn’t touch for decades:
 

“Democrats aren’t about to say anything that would besmirch the reputation of the National Security State they love so much.” 😝 

 

— Garland Nixon 

[Benjamin Cole]

17 minutes ago, Lori Spencer said:

When Galloway asked why a right-wing journalist (Tucker) dared report what the mainstream liberal media wouldn’t touch for decades:
 

“Democrats aren’t about to say anything that would besmirch the reputation of the National Security State they love so much.” 😝 

 

— Garland Nixon 

Egads, so sad and so true. 

There is no loyal opposition anymore. 

The US spends $1.5 trillion annually (DoD, VA, black budget, pro-rated interest on the national debt) on a global guard service for multinationals, and if you even question that, you are an ingrate and suspect. 

When it comes to trade and the globalized military, there is only one party. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Galloway made the finest appearance I ever saw in facing down a senate committee. Magnificent.

 

Here he is on JFK and Carlson

 

One for you guys - watch the video. @Kirk Gallaway @Matt Allison 

 

@James DiEugenio his performance in front of the senate committee was exceptional, he shamed them. It’s a shame his mind seems to have slowed down to such a degree, he was so quick witted when young,  but, age comes to us all. 

[Lori Spencer]

Not that I think the personal politics of the MOATS TV hosts should matter, but just for the record, Galloway and Nixon are socialists — NOT liberals or Democrats! (For those unaware) And certainly as far from right-wing as it gets. 
 

we are witnessing a dramatic shifting of the political plates, and an earthquake will follow. 
 

Strange days indeed! 
Most peculiar, mama! 🎶 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Hey you guys on the right, remember how your guts got twisted in knots to see Galloway come before our own Senate and shame them about your beloved Iraq War!

Hey good for him, but this was a lot more earthshaking at the time with thousands of lives in the balance! This is priceless!

It's really binary thinking. The solid majority in the U.S. don't want goons to stop the certification of their elections by Fascists so now the Fascists and their goons are whining that the vast majority who want the orderly transition of government have thrown in their lots with the National Security State.

Boo hoo! Stop whining.because you couldn't get the  majority of people to give their rights over to you!   

 

 

 

Boo hoo again! To most of them the foremost JFKA moment of their lives is when after 1/6, Trump got banned from Twitter! And they're still reeling!

That is the peak of their entire political live's emotional arc! That's the greatest extent of political devastation they'll ever experience!  Spare us!

 

[Roger Odisio]

Carlson's segment is snowballing, because the meat of what he said--what the CIA has become and what the deep state has done to society since the murder--is being corroborated every day in the story about their control of twitter and the other social media over what information people get to see.  Here is Briana Joy Gray today.  

Carlson's blowing past the government/media gatekeepers to explain things so clearly is a tremendous victory.

Note: to the two Larrys.  If you get access to Carlson and his people, don't waste time pressing him for his source.  Ask him to continue to flesh out the story.  He knows how Washington works. What does the CIA "was involved in" mean?  

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Im in contact with Carlson's producer and am doing some backchannelling. sharing some ideas about how to move this along. i will let you know how it progresses. as a Republican, i have cred with them.  

[Larry Hancock]

Rodger, I'll leave it to Larry S to pursue but for myself....and being an ongoing nudge in such things....unless or until he provides some level of detail about the source (not the identity per se) but did the source see a document, have a personal conversation with someone who did, or with someone who could describe a primary source who would know about such things - in other words give us some reason to believe he is not just repeating gossip, opinion, belief (which we have plenty of already) then I'm not sure it does us much good. 

That wold be true even if he elaborates on "what type of involvement" - we have pretty much any type of involvement one could imagine on the table already and have had for  years. What we don't really need as a source is just one more person hanging out in Washington who belies in their gut that the CIA was somehow "involved" . We've had that for decades now.

Regardless of politics or other issues I'll applaud if he brings something to the table (especially if its to Justice, Congress, anyone who could use it in an actual investigation) that really could advance investigation of the CIA as an agency, its personnel or even its surrogates. 

 

 

[Lori Spencer]

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Note: to the two Larrys.  If you get access to Carlson and his people, don't waste time pressing him for his source.  Ask him to continue to flesh out the story.  He knows how Washington works. What does the CIA "was involved in" mean?  

Right. It’s not the source’s identity that matters here. It’s the underlying documents or information the source was privy to that matters. 
 

Protecting this anonymous source is my paramount concern (and Tucker’s concern as well, I hope) — because whistleblowers are not treated kindly by the US government, and the trail of dead in this particular case is long… 

 

Like I said earlier, the NSA/CIA already know who the source is, unless Carlson and the source employed extreme caution in their communications and used no electronic devices whatsoever. 
 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Lori Spencer

[Joseph Backes]

Brian Joy Gray is an idiot. All of this is idiotic. 

The idea that only 3% have been redacted is a lie.  Same with this idea that 4400 have been "delayed," whatever that means.  

There was no reporting "at the time" in 2017 that releasing the records marked for release by the ARRB would be "infuriating to the CIA and elsewhere." Their precious little feelings don't matter. There's a law.  That there are people determined to keep anything secret is irrelevant. There's a law. They are breaking the law. 

"And given the lack of confidence the Conservative public has in these "deep state" institutions..."

OFFS, who gives a toss what the Conservative public thinks!  This isn't about what the Conservative public thinks. And since when do Conservatives think? 

This is all about Trump. Trump and his dumbass defenders and enablers. And predictably that's why they're giving this so much attention.  Trump wasn't a problem, isn't a problem, it's the "deep state," man, they're the problem.  

"The Twitter files?" Really, from Apartheid Clyde?  

And Tucker Carlson, the guy who wants the men of the world to tan their balls, is now the new hero of declassification in the JFK assassination? WTF? Tucker Carlson isn't courageous. Tucker Carlson is a lying sack of XXXXX. He lies for a living. Get a clue people. 

And Elon Musk's BS whataboutism "the Twitter files," which he claims are as important or even more so than "the Facebook files," except they aren't, is supposed to be lumped in with the JFK assassination because, why? Was Hunter Biden's laptop supposedly found on the grassy knoll now? The Twitter files is BS meant to demonize those who banned Trump from Twitter when Trump was using Twitter to call for violent acts against the US government.   

Stephen Colbert on Tucker's Manly documentary.  Go to 5:20 mark - 

 

Joan Donovan explains the failure that is "the Twitter files."

Edited December 22, 2022 by Joseph Backes

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Rodger, I'll leave it to Larry S to pursue but for myself....and being an ongoing nudge in such things....unless or until he provides some level of detail about the source (not the identity per se) but did the source see a document, have a personal conversation with someone who did, or with someone who could describe a primary source who would know about such things - in other words give us some reason to believe he is not just repeating gossip, opinion, belief (which we have plenty of already) then I'm not sure it does us much good. 

That wold be true even if he elaborates on "what type of involvement" - we have pretty much any type of involvement one could imagine on the table already and have had for  years. What we don't really need as a source is just one more person hanging out in Washington who belies in their gut that the CIA was somehow "involved" . We've had that for decades now.

Regardless of politics or other issues I'll applaud if he brings something to the table (especially if its to Justice, Congress, anyone who could use it in an actual investigation) that really could advance investigation of the CIA as an agency, its personnel or even its surrogates. 

 

 

I have to concur with Larry H. on this one.

I wholeheartedly applaud Tucker Carlson for the excellent presentation he made on the JFK Records Act.  

I am aching to believe Carlson has a solid case for what he said. 

Nevertheless, "Trust, but verify."

Washington is a long knives sort of town. Carlson could have been set up. Or maybe Carlson just made a mistake, and placed faith in the wrong person.  

Going forward, even back channel communications to Carlson's source could be tricky. If the source is discovered by the intel state, work might begin to discredit, blackmail or intimidate the source. 

Nevertheless, we need some extra comfort and context for Carlson's superb presentation. 

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

30 minutes ago, Joseph Backes said:

Brian Joy Gray is an idiot. All of this is idiotic. 

The idea that only 3% have been redacted is a lie.  Same with this idea that 4400 have been "delayed," whatever that means.  

There was no reporting "at the time" in 2017 that releasing the records marked for release by the ARRB would be "infuriating to the CIA and elsewhere." Their precious little feelings don't matter. There's a law.  That there are people determined to keep anything secret is irrelevant. There's a law. They are breaking the law. 

"And given the lack of confidence the Conservative public has in these "deep state" institutions..."

OFFS, who gives a toss what the Conservative public thinks!  This isn't about what the Conservative public thinks. And since when do Conservatives think? 

This is all about Trump. Trump and his dumbass defenders and enablers. And predictably that's why they're giving this so much attention.  Trump wasn't a problem, isn't a problem, it's the "deep state," man, they're the problem.  

"The Twitter files?" Really, from Apartheid Clyde?  

And Tucker Carlson, the guy who wants the men of the world to tan their balls, is now the new hero of declassification in the JFK assassination? WTF? Tucker Carlson isn't courageous. Tucker Carlson is a lying sack of XXXXX. He lies for a living. Get a clue people. 

And Elon Musk's BS whataboutism "the Twitter files," which he claims are as important or even more so than "the Facebook files," except they aren't, is supposed to be lumped in with the JFK assassination because, why? Was Hunter Biden's laptop supposedly found on the grassy knoll now? The Twitter files is BS meant to demonize those who banned Trump from Twitter when Trump was using Twitter to call for violent acts against the US government.   

Stephen Colbert on Tucker's Manly documentary.  Go to 5:20 mark - 

 

Joan Donovan explains the failure that is "the Twitter files."

RFK Jr was featured in that special.. 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Rodger, I'll leave it to Larry S to pursue but for myself....and being an ongoing nudge in such things....unless or until he provides some level of detail about the source (not the identity per se) but did the source see a document, have a personal conversation with someone who did, or with someone who could describe a primary source who would know about such things - in other words give us some reason to believe he is not just repeating gossip, opinion, belief (which we have plenty of already) then I'm not sure it does us much good. 

That wold be true even if he elaborates on "what type of involvement" - we have pretty much any type of involvement one could imagine on the table already and have had for  years. What we don't really need as a source is just one more person hanging out in Washington who belies in their gut that the CIA was somehow "involved" . We've had that for decades now.

Regardless of politics or other issues I'll applaud if he brings something to the table (especially if its to Justice, Congress, anyone who could use it in an actual investigation) that really could advance investigation of the CIA as an agency, its personnel or even its surrogates. 

 

 

I agree, Larry, "was involved" doesn't say much of anything, which is why I suggested you press him on it.  In fact the latest limited hangout position of the CIA and FBI seems to be:  OK, we did know Oswald and had been watching him..  We could have done a better job in preventing him for murdering JFK.  Ridiculous.

 

But I think you and some others are putting way too much emphasis on the role the source played in Carlson's spiel.  Carlson has been around Washington his whole life; he knows the deep state and criticized it before.  For example, he has Glenn Greenwald on regularly (the other cable channels shun Greenwald because he disrupts the narrative) to talk about their influence. About how the left used to understand the dangers of deep state, but now embraces them and assorted neocons because they can be used to go after Trump. 

 

The story about how the CIA weaponized "conspiracy theorist" to try ridicule anyone who challenged the official fairy tale, and the CIA psychiatrist who tried to claim Ruby was crazy presumably did not come from the source.

 

I came to the same conclusion long ago as Carlson has.  I didn't need someone at the CIA to agree.  I don't think Carlson needed one either.  I think what Carlson said was his own conclusion.  The strength of his takedown of the CIA is one indication of that.  He found a source who could "verify" it and thought that would make a stronger piece, by not leaving him so far out front on the story.

 

I came to the same conclusion long ago as Carlson did.  I don't think Carlson needed one either.