MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Gil Jesus]

16 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

You're talking about Godfrey McHugh. What difference would his presence in the limo have made? What's your evidence that the SS removed him? Why do you call it a "last minute" change? He didn't ride in the limo in Fort Worth either.

First of all, the limo wasn't used in either Houston or Fort Worth.  They used regular Lincoln convertibles. In fact, the Lincoln convertible they used for the President was on loan from professional golfer Ben Hogan.

Second, whether or not he was in those cars has nothing to do with his being moved at Love Field. McHugh admitted he was repositioned in the Dallas motorcade.

( From Vince Palamara )

General Godfrey McHugh ( rode in VIP car )--- was asked to sit in a car farther back in the motorcade, rather than "normally, what I would do between the driver and Secret Service agent in charge of trip" ( 1 ) he admitted this was "unusual". ( 2 )
"Ordinarily McHugh rode in the Presidential limousine in the front seat. "
This was the first time he was instructed not to ride in the car so that "all attention would be focused on the President to accentuate full exposure." ( 3 )

Finally, his removal from the middle of the front seat is prima facie evidence that those who moved him were aware that shots were going to be fired from in front of the limo and sought to keep him out of the line of fire.

As they did to Admiral Burkley.

"Dr. George Burkley...felt that he should be close to the President at all times... Dr. Burkley was unhappy...this time the admiral protested. He could be of no assistance to the President if a doctor was needed quickly." ( 4 )

Dead men don't need doctors.

They also moved the Press further back in the motorcade to get them out of the line of fire.

( more from Vince P. )

DMN reporter Tom Dillard---"We lost our position AT THE AIRPORT. I understood we were to have been quite a bit closer. We were assigned as the prime photographic car which, as you probably know, NORMALLY A TRUCK PRECEDES THE PRESIDENT ON THESE THINGS [MOTORCADES] AND CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC PRESS RIDE WITH THE TRUCK. In this case, as you know, we didn't have any and this car that I was in was to take photographs which was of spot-news nature." [Emphasis added]. 

Dillard forcefully said the same thing on C-Span on 11/20/93,telling the TV audience that the flatbed truck was "canceled at the last minute" and they were put in Chevrolet convertibles "which totally put us out of the picture." 

Henry Burroughs, AP photographer (rode in Camera Car #2)---"I was a member of  the White House pool aboard Air Force One when we arrived with JFK in Dallas on that fateful day. We, the pool, were dismayed to find our pool car shoved back to about #11 position in the motorcade. We protested, but it was too late."
 

from Jim Bishop's "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" (1992 edition):
p. 133 and 134

"The ninth car was a Chevrolet convertible for White House motion picture photographers. It was impossible to take pictures in a position so remote from the President."

" The press was displeased with its place in the parade. Some felt they could have reported a better story watching the motorcade from any of the buildings downtown. Even their wire representatives- AP, UPI, and American Broadcasting sitting forward in a special car, were six hundred feet behind the Kennedys and could see little except the Mayor of Dallas directly ahead."

At Love Field, the order of the vehicles in the motorcade had been changed at the last minute as well.

Milton Wright, Texas Highway Patrolman (driver of Mayor Cabell's car) "As I recall, prior to the President arriving at the airport we were already staged on the tarmac. I do not recall what position I was in at that time but it was not #1 ( the number taped to his car's windshield ). At the last minute there was a lot of shuffling and I ended up in the 5th vehicle." ( 5 )

Of course these people protested at the last minute changes, but they couldn't possibly have known that these changes were to spare they lives.

It was the Secret Service who made these changes.

Just like they did in moving the motorcycle officers to the rear corners of the limo.

Not only were they reduced in number from 8 to 4 and moved to the rear corners of the car, they were told not to react if anyone assaulted the President.

Dallas Police motorcycle officer B.J. Martin "said that at morning muster the four Presidential motorcycle officers were ordered that under no circumstances were they to leave their positions regardless of what happened." ( 6 )

These last minute changes were made at Love Field to get the press, the police and the military people out of the line of fire. And that indicates Secret Service complicity in the assassination. 

 

NOTES:

( 1 ) Burkley rode in the lead car in Miami on 11/18/63: RIF# 154-10002-10422

( 2 ) For example, McHugh rode here in Tampa on 11/18/63: RIF# 154-10002-10423 

See also:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/IRELAND-JUN-1963.jpg
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/dublin-1963.jpg
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/berlin2.jpg
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JFK-In-Washington-Motorcade-7-11-61.jpg
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/JFK_tampa-november-63.jpg
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/berlin-jun-63.jpg

Press on flatbed in FRONT of the limousine:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/press-on-flatbed.mp4

( 3 ) CFTR radio (Canada) interview 1976

( 4 ) 5/11/78 interview with the HSCA's Mark Flanagan (RIF# 180-10078-10465 see also 7 HSCA 14 )

( 5 ) 9/3/98 e-mail to Vince Palamara

( 6 ) "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p.33:

Edited March 18, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Guest]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:54 AM, Chris Barnard said:

This is exactly what Jim D did with Lance.

Poor Lance. Boo-hoo. Actually, I find it quite helpful when folks such as Jim expose who they really are.

I can scarcely object if someone wants to refer to a newspaper article about me. All I can do is correct the record by stating the actual facts. After I had done so, Jim persisted in repeating blatant inaccuracies. I did bring that to the moderators' attention and have no idea what action, if any, was taken.

Matthew took the same newspaper article to an entirely new level, wildly misstating what the article itself actually said in a manner that was clearly defamatory. Because I find internet forums generally comical and am pretty thick-skinned after 40 years of practicing law, I played along until Matthew's posts became over-the-top crazy and showed no sign of abating.

This is ironic because my political sympathies, such as they are, are far more in line with Matthew's than those of most other participants' here. Did I suggest or demand he be banned? No. Do I believe his banning was appropriate. Absolutely.

When I joined, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona attorney, was a very regular participant. For some reason, he took a dislike to me and began suggesting I was a non-attorney posing as an attorney, going so far as to pose bizarre legal questions to see if I could answer them. I pointed out to Jim Gordon that my status as an Arizona attorney in good standing since 1982 could be verified in 15 seconds on the State Bar website. To Jim's credit, he summarily banned Tidd - boom, no questions asked. That's how it should work.

Every internet forum - every one, without exception - is a wild mixture of the good, bad, wacky, crazy and scary-crazy. I'm generally OK with everything up to scary-crazy. Alas, this forum seems to me to have an increasing number of scary-crazies and to have strayed far from what it's theoretically supposed to be about. Be thankful Lance isn't a moderator, or there would be some Stalin-like housecleaning.

Matthew as an agent provocateur? Nah. What is that even supposed to mean? IMHO, anyone who thinks that - or thinks the same about me, as has been often expressed - is living in some la-la land where this forum and JFKA conspiracy theorizing are Way More Important than they actually are. IMHO, Matthew simply demonstrated - as I believe others on this thread likewise have - that he was incorrigibly beyond the fringe of what a functioning forum can reasonably tolerate.

Despite the recent activity, I believe the forum is close to non-moderated. Face it, it's a largely dying forum that now has a far lower caliber of participants than it did in past years. (The "guests" shown on forum statistics, meager as they are, are primarily bots.) I don't blame the moderators for governing with a somewhat lax hand under the circumstances. They surely have better things to do and probably see the situation as pretty much a lost cause anyway, at least until the scary-crazies get bored and move on.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Gil Jesus]

18 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Despite the recent activity, I believe the forum is close to non-moderated. Face it, it's a largely dying forum that now has a far lower caliber of participants than it did in past years. (The "guests" shown on forum statistics, meager as they are, are primarily bots.) I don't blame the moderators for governing with a somewhat lax hand under the circumstances. They surely have better things to do and probably see the situation as pretty much a lost cause anyway, at least until the scary-crazies get bored and move on.

deleted

Edited March 18, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

deleted

Not sure why you deleted whatever you had to say in response to that portion of my post. I wasn't suggesting that I am or have been one of the "higher caliber" participants. That's for others to judge. Lone Nutters are hardly going to win any popularity contests here anyway, and I certainly haven't dived into the JFKA at the level of some of those who have made mini-careers of it.

I think if anyone looks back five or more years, the inescapable conclusion is that the discussions were generally of a higher caliber and more JFKA-focused. One problem may be that there really isn't a lot more to be said, which is why the exact same topics have been discussed in ten or more threads. In my observation, virtually everything you post has been beaten to death ten times over.

I myself have moved on more than once and plan to stay pretty much moved-on. One reason is the seemingly endless discussion of the same topics and the same entirely predictable bickering about those topics over and over. Another reason is that the JFKA is a rather minor blip on the radar screen of my life. My interest waxes and wanes, but it never even approaches the level of those for whom the JFKA seems to be an all-consuming obsession - whether they be conspiracy theorists or Lone Nutters. If the CIA and Mafia actually did conspire 60 years ago to whack JFK, I'll have to admit that fact is far less significant to me than my golf game, my theological studies and lots of other things.

The forum does seem to me to have taken a distinct scary-crazy and unusually nasty turn, thanks largely to non-U.S. posters who seem to have only a marginal interest in the JFKA. I find it more than slightly bizarre. You're going to use an obscure, thinly populated JFKA forum as a soapbox for your disruptive harping and political rants? Really? Why? If I were inclined to see agent provocateurs under every rock, this entire segment of the community would at least have my antennae up.

A final reason is that, apart from the intellectual jousting and exercise of my writing skills that I sometimes enjoy in a variety of contexts, I'm not sure why Lone Nutters like me post here at all. They know the responses they are going to get. (I could write most participants' responses to my posts for them and save them the trouble.) They know their Oswald-did-it arguments will fall on deaf ears. They know they are only beating their heads against the proverbial wall. They know there are no hordes of open-minded lurkers waiting to be convinced. They pretty well know the needle of history has never budged an inch and likely never will. So what's the point? Why give the conspiracy community this level of attention?  It dawned on me that this is the proverbial wrestling with a pig, where you both end up covered with mud but the pig enjoys it. (Not calling CTers pigs, mind you - simply saying that obsessively defending the Lone Nut perspective seems to me to accomplish exactly the opposite of its intended purpose by giving conspiracy theories a backhanded sort of credibility.) Ergo, I have pretty much disassociated myself from the fray.

 

[Mark Knight]

12 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Mark Knight said:

 

There are a few points I'd like to make here.

1. Contributing to the Education Forum is voluntary. It is not a membership fee. But contributing does not "buy" anyone an exemption from the forum rules. The only thing a contribution to the EF funding does is pay for the continued existence of the EF. There is no quid pro quo, no "pay to play," and no exemption from forum rules.

2. If Mr. Cotter chooses to make me the bogeyman and the "source of all evil" on this forum, he can do that. I'm an old guy with broad shoulders. I'm tempted to say, "I've been called worse by better," but I have no idea whether Mr. Cotter IS worse or better. I would bet that, away from this forum, we would likely find some common ground in a discussion over a beverage of choice.

3. While I have my own political viewpoints, they have no bearing on how the forum is moderated. The primary driver of moderation is the reports made by forum members themselves. I don't generally act unilaterally. I usually consult with the other administrators, and many times I simply ignore the reports that seem to be about literally nothing.

4. If I see a post that angers me [few do], I generally refer them to the other administrators to ensure that I'm not acting out of anger and that someone else can make the decision whether the post deserves moderation. In that way, I'm doing my humanly best to remain as impartial as I possibly can.

5. The suspension of Matthew Koch's posting privileges was not the decision of only one administrator. The deliberations involved took place over a considerable length of time.

6. The "56 Years" thread has not been deleted. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

 

————————————————————-

I replied:

 

 

Hi Mark, 

I mean the following with all due respect. I know you guys do this on a volunteer basis and it has eaten up peoples time lately, which must be frustrating. I also know that there is a great deal of political nettle and friction in the USA. With that taken into account, I will point out the following:

 

1) I agree that voluntary contributions are not a contract and they do not give a person special privileges or rights here. However, people do contribute not only on the basis of wanting the forum and its treasure trove of information and discussions to be preserved but, also so they can participate.
Without any caution or warning, or direct message/email, @Matthew Koch has been suspended or banned. You have also cited a reason for this banning in the public post, though not naming Matthew per se. Stalking was mentioned. I have no problem with there being a rule for that, which prohibits publicly available information about a person being shared or referenced about a person without their permission. But, there was no such rule for that at the time of you suspended Matthew. Jim Di also shared something about Lance, and he isn’t banned for the same thing. Why? Can we have one rule for the goose and another for the gander? I witnessed the fracas between Ron and Matthew, however, there was previous vitriol which started with Ron using a play on words with Matthews last name. Ron did also respond breaking rules and as far as I am aware, he isn’t suspended either.

I am not seeking that anyone is banned or suspended here, I would like equality, a level playing field, a sense of fairness. And a situation where we all are clear where the line is.
 

2/3) I know it won’t be popular for me to say but, I can see where John is coming from. I have never had any truck with you, Mark. Our exchanges have always been rather cordial. If we go to page 865 or 866 of the thread in question: you did have some nettle with Matthew and I don’t think your response was fair, kind or impartial:

 

 

Mark Knight

Posted October 1, 2022

   On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM,  Sandy Larsen said: 

   On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM,  Sandy Larsen said: 

Just pondering my new surroundings...

The difference between Matthew and Ben is that Matthew is all-in Trump, whereas Ben is all-in what he wants Trump to be. Matthew believes all MAGAverse alternative facts, whereas Ben believes only the ones he can fit with his True Trump.

 

I think Matthew's last name tells us where his loyalties lie.

Whether he's related to them or not.

—————————————————-

Does the above sound ok? Look, we’ve all said things that in hind sight may have been regrettable.

What it looks like is that perhaps you should have recused yourself in this case, as it may be argued that there is a conflict of interests or a conscious or unconscious bias present. I don’t know if all moderators are fiercely loyal Democrats but, it certainly seems like a majority, Kathy has been quite pointed at times too IMO (not impartial). Is this analogous to having an white jury try Emmett Till? It doesn’t seem fair at all. I would think differently if others had been held to account for doing the same things as Matthew. 
 

4) Makes sense. 

5) It may be a consensus but, it doesn’t make it better if it looks like a witch-hunt. There is a moral responsibility to make a fair decision. The thread was seen to be deteriorating for days and nothing was done. People on one side of the debate were defamed (mostly, not exclusively), all sorts of heinous terms were used or insinuated, the worst insults and then there was some retaliation. At any point in time mods could have said; enough us enough, any ad hominem directly or indirectly will be a weeks ban, no matter how big or small, and it would have diffused the situation IMO. It would have been much quicker to fire out 6-8 copy paste messages to offenders. Instead it was allowed to rattle on, with tensions building. Was what Matthew did worse than being called fascist, far-right, anti-semitic, and whatever else? There are no grounds for this. I am on the left and libertarian, but, I have also been much maligned and called some of these things. I have retaliated as sometimes its been the only way to stop the culprits and put them in retreat. It shouldn’t be that way if we desire a decent discourse. Yes, we are all human and we often fail to live up to our high ideals. Democrats are supposed to have much higher ideals than Republicans (or at least I was led to believe), the party of FDR and JFK. Would either of those two be banning Matthew right now with no explanation or forewarning? Would they choose to censor? 
 

6) I think moving the thread was the right thing to do. I think the Trump thread at the top should also be moved. 
 

In conclusion, I would ask you guys to review your own decision. As I think standards/criteria haven’t been met. I think we have to demonstrate them if we are to justify action against an ideological enemy. Of course that’s just my opinion, you can do as you wish, its your prerogative. At least in my eyes this doesn’t seem fair or equitable. We can all do better. 
 

Chris 

———————————————

If you guys are justified as per your own rules, why are you hiding from a free and open dialogue on the matter? Why are you failing to justify your positions? 
 

 

 

From Terms Of Forum Use, posted in 2014:

"Suspension of members, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum."

This is not some newly-concocted rule. Nor is it hidden from Forum members, as it's pinned to the opening page of the JFK Assassination Forum. I'm simply pointing that out.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I realize that you have not printed out and memorized all my posts.

But I have presented my views on variations of these topics before, probably too many times. 

1. Russiagate Hoax: I agree with the Matt Taibbis, the Glenn Greenwalds, and even the Peter Strzoks, that "there is no there, there."  One can conjecture what happened in certain meetings...but conjectures and accusations are not evidence. The Biden Justice Department has had two years now....We just have to agree to disagree. We could spend hours on even minute points of Russiagate Hoax...did Manafort know Kilimnik was an FSB asset, or even was Kilimnik an FSB asset? Do intel-assets go around telling people, "BTW, I am a spy?" That is called "blowing your cover," and might even have fatal consequences. See also the 24,000-word CJR four-part series on the topic, free online. I largely agree with that article.  

2. My take is Fox-Carlson is on the outs with the national security state---did you see Carlson say Pompeo must have known who killed JFK. Egads! Meanwhile, there are platoons of ex intel-state guys holding forth at CNN and MSNBC. Too many to count. Let's disagree on this one. 

3. Matt Taibbi, and many, many other solid reporters, from across the spectrum, have reviewed the Twittergate Files and concluded Twitter was running government-approved or influenced algorithms , and also silencing ordinary Americans who had non-orthodox views. This is a short-hand statement for what went on. I don't understand why one would turn Twittergate evidence over to authorities---when it is the authorities that are doing the bad stuff. We disagree on this one.

4. On Jan. 6, surely there were crazies in the crowd, and provocateurs, instigators and also unknown numbers of government assets. The indisputable Mr. Buffalo Horn videos show an inexplicable episode--as if Mr BF was being shown around for photo-op purposes, to be the face of the occupation. Other videos indisputably show Capitol Police opening barricades. I could go on about the Capitol Police showing up light and then standing down, and they report to the legislative branch. There is no evidence that the Trump people were connected to the Jan 6 scrum. I disapprove of violence in any form, btw.  

We are worlds apart in our perspectives and what we consider relevant facts. That's fine...this is a forum. I look forward to your contributions. 

@Benjamin Cole 2. My take is Fox-Carlson is on the outs with the national security state---did you see Carlson say Pompeo must have known who killed JFK. Egads! Meanwhile, there are platoons of ex intel-state guys holding forth at CNN and MSNBC. Too many to count. Let's disagree on this one. 

Benjamin, I’ll begin with Kash Patel because the line of inquiry establishes that the alt-right supports their very own“deep state,” the euphemism for the very same Military-Industrial Complex on an international scale that fueled the decision to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas in 1963. These are the ideological descendants.

Spinning Trump as the “no war” president to rail against the “deep state” fails to take into account his $738 billion defense bill before he left office. 

 

NSC aide who worked to discredit Russia probe moves to senior ODNI post

By Daniel Lippman

02/20/2020, Politico

Kash Patel, a former acolyte of Rep. Devin Nunes, is now a top adviser in the Office of National Intelligence.

Kash Patel, a former top National Security Council official who also played a key role as a Hill staffer in helping Republicans discredit the Russia probe, is now a senior adviser for new acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, according to four people familiar with the matter.

(more on Grenell later.)

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/kash-patel-odni-post-116546

*****

Patel’s official bio.

KASHYAP P. PATEL, ESQ.

Former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense

 

Mr. Patel served as the former Chief of Staff to Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and is responsible for leading the Secretary’s mission at the Department, including his executive staff and providing counsel to the Secretary on all matters concerning the Department’s operations.

Previously, Mr. Patel served as the Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism (CT) at the National Security Council (NSC). In that capacity, Mr. Patel oversaw the execution of several of President Donald J. Trump’s top priorities, including eliminating ISIS and Al-Qa’ida leadership such as al-Baghdadi and Qasem al-Rimi, and the safe repatriation of numerous American hostages. Mr. Patel also served as Principal Deputy to the Acting Director of National Intelligence, where he oversaw the operations of all 17 intelligence community agencies and provided the President’s Daily Briefing.

Before joining the NSC, Mr. Patel served as the National Security Advisor and Senior Counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), where he spearheaded the investigation into the Russian active measures campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election. Concurrently, he oversaw sensitive programs for the Intelligence Community and U.S. Special Operations Forces and worked to enact legislation to fully fund the multi-billion dollar budgets supporting intelligence and counterterrorism operations worldwide.

In other words, Patel has been entrenched in the “deep state” apparatus for decades.Yet, Patel had the hutzpah to opine on Breitbart News as recently as 3 Mar, 2023.

 

‘Taking on the Swamp’ — Kash Patel: ‘There Is No Deep State Without the Fake News Mafia’ 

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) about how to take on the administrative state, former Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel said “There is no deep state without the fake news mafia.”

Lamenting the fact Americans even have to talk about the reality of a “deep state,” Patel called it something one would normally hear about in “tyrannical dictatorships.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/03/03/taking-on-the-swamp-kash-patel-there-is-no-deep-state-without-the-fake-news-mafia/

*****

Moving from Patel to Erik Prince. . .  Anyone who has studied the “deep state” knows that Erik Prince’s Blackwater and subsequent iterations is the quintessential private military contractor able to skirt Congressional oversight of his for-profit private mercenary operations in dozens of global hotspots since 1996.  His sister was Trump’s Secretary of Education, a woman who advocated for private vouchers that erode America’s public school system.

 

The Men Behind the Nunes Memo

The House Intelligence Committee’s chair wasn’t alone in drafting the classified memo that it just voted to release.

By Natasha Bertrand

JANUARY 30, 2018, The Atlantic

 

[Kash] Patel also formally invited Erik Prince to testify before the House Intelligence Committee last summer following a meeting between Prince and Nunes “over the summer or early fall,” according to a transcript of Prince’s interview, which was conducted on November 30. The meeting raised eyebrows given Nunes’s recusal from the Russia investigation at the time and Prince’s status as a witness in that probe.

*****

From Prince and Patel, we move to Patel and Carlson and Fo News, Murcoch’s private, partison, alternative ”deep state” media conglomerate . . .

 Of note, Patel is not relegated to alt-right broadcast and print media i.e., Breitbart or Gateway Pundit, he’s also a favorite consultant on Fo News.  Here he is, March 9, 2023, calling on Tucker Carlson to pursue Ray Epps.  See how this works, Benjamin?

 

KASH PATEL CALLS ON TUCKER CARLSON TO RELEASE FOOTAGE OF UNDERCOVER FEDS

Mar 8 2023

"Ray Epps was on FBI's most wanted list one day, and the next day he was off. There are only two ways that happens: you die, or you are an informant. . . .

https://rumble.com/v2c70lc-kash-patel-calls-on-tucker-carlson-to-release-footage-of-undercover-feds.html

*****

 

And who first advanced Patel’s ideology with millions of Fo viewers? Sean Hannity who took him to meet Trump in the oval.

 

Patel is no ordinary aide to Trump. During the Trump administration, he served as Deputy Assistant to the President, a job he reportedly “landed after Fox News host Sean Hannity took him to meet Trump in the Oval.” After the November 2020 elections, Patel was dispatched to the Defense Department as chief of staff to the acting defense secretary where, among other activities, he reportedly pursued the idea that Italian military satellites had been used to turn votes to Joe Biden in the presidential election, according to Jonathan Karl’s book and the House Select Committee hearings. Since leaving office, Patel has joined the board of directors for the former president’s media company, Trump Media & Technology Group. On June 19, 2022, Trump sent a letter to the National Archives designating Patel as one of the former president’s “representatives for access to Presidential records of my administration.” Patel claims to have been in the room when then-President Trump verbally declassified documents. He has often made other statements in right-wing interviews that anticipate and put forward Trump’s specific claims of innocence about the Mar-a-Lago documents.
https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/trump-associates-stated-plan-to-publicly-release-declassified-documents/

 

  

 

 

Additionally, Patel has close ties to the QAnon conspiracy movement, which Trump has also fully embraced. Patel used QAnon to build the user base of Trump-branded social media site Truth Social; Nunes, his former boss, is the site’s CEO. He has also praised QAnon activists, and defended signing his book using a QAnon slogan.

https://www.mediamatters.org/steve-bannon/kash-patel-announces-he-will-tour-united-states-trump-campaign-surrogate-2024

*****

 

 

Patel and Richard Grenell, Trump’s Amb. To Germany and proposed to serve as his acting Director of Intelligence … 

Kash Patel, a former top National Security Council official who also played a key role as a Hill staffer in helping Republicans discredit the Russia probe, is now a senior adviser for new acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, according to four people familiar with the matter.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/kash-patel-odni-post-116546

New US ambassador to Germany under fire for rightwing support

Phillip Olterman
June 4, 2018, The Guardian

Politicians accuse Richard Grenell of breaching protocol over interview with Breitbart

German politicians have criticised Donald Trump’s new ambassador to Germany after he said he wanted to “empower” anti-establishment rightwing forces throughout Europe.

“US Senator Chris Murphy said rightly that ambassadors are not supposed to ‘empower’ political parties. Ambassador Grenell is new on his post and I hope this irritation will not be repeated.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/04/new-us-ambassador-to-germany-under-fire-for-rightwing-support

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[John Cotter]

21 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Cotter, I will step in for Mr. Bulman and explain "precisely what was wrong" with the comments he cited.

In the pinned topic MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR, administrator James Gordon posted the following:

"In addition I have noted that some members have been playing with word structure to avoid using offensive language. That will no longer be tolerated."

This is NOT some new rule. This post dates back to 2015. And it covers what you did twice with a word beginning with "f" and again with a word beginning with "p". [I won't repost the words, because I don't want to give you the opportunity to call me a hypocrite for demonstrating the offensive behaviour in order to point out examples of the offensive behaviour.]

I would suggest you take a couple of moments to reacquaint yourself with the forum rules.

The Education Forum is NOT ROKC. The administrators, though we are human, are attempting to continue the standards established by our predecessor, John Simkin.

References:

MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

 

 

Mark,

Thank you for that clarification. I missed that detail. I apologise for breaking the rule in question and I undertake not to do so again.

It needs to be said, however, that my transgressions in that regard involved no ad hominem or other illogicality, so the arguments I was presenting remain unrefuted.

It’s a pity that there is no rule against one of the most serious kind of transgressions on the forum, which is the persistent disruption of discussions by logically fallacious or irrelevant posts. While the moderators do apparently monitor one kind of these posts, ad hominems, there is no check on the many other kinds such as straw men, red herrings and other non sequiturs.

These irrelevant posts are offensive in one sense. Since they misrepresent the arguments they are supposedly rebutting, the perpetrators of these illogicalities force their opponents to depart from the “critical path” of the discussion in order to either (a) deal with the off-topic non sequiturs – chase the red herrings, as it were, or (b) abandon the discussion altogether.

Either way, the disrupters thus sabotage the arguments of their opponents and the discussions as a whole. Threads are derailed by off-topic “debates” about issues debated many times previously and arguments previously refuted are recycled as if the refutation never happened.

The result is a complete mess. In the case of this forum, the behaviour of these saboteurs is utterly destructive of its primary aim, which is to discover the truth about the JFK assassination.

It’s unfortunate that there is no rule against this kind of forum destruction.  I’ve long believed that the reason internet forums generally have utterly failed to remediate the creeping authoritarianism which has been undermining what little semblance of democracy is permitted in our western plutocracies is that these forums have no such rules.

In the absence of the rules of logic being explicitly deemed a sine qua non for the proper governance of internet forums, let alone enforced, the authoritarian majority have the licence to persistently drown out with their gobbledygook the voices of the anti-authoritarian minority, which by definition are the voices of reason.

That’s the real problem. Banning Matthew Koch or binning the “56 year” thread is not going to fix it.

Edited March 18, 2023 by John Cotter

[Mark Ulrik]

9 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

First of all, the limo wasn't used in either Houston or Fort Worth.  They used regular Lincoln convertibles. In fact, the Lincoln convertible they used for the President was on loan from professional golfer Ben Hogan.

Second, whether or not he was in those cars has nothing to do with his being moved at Love Field. McHugh admitted he was repositioned in the Dallas motorcade.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "limo", but my point was that his not riding in the car with the President in Fort Worth makes the same thing repeating in Dallas seem less remarkable.

10 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

( From Vince Palamara )

General Godfrey McHugh ( rode in VIP car )--- was asked to sit in a car farther back in the motorcade, rather than "normally, what I would do between the driver and Secret Service agent in charge of trip" ( 1 ) he admitted this was "unusual". ( 2 )
"Ordinarily McHugh rode in the Presidential limousine in the front seat. "
This was the first time he was instructed not to ride in the car so that "all attention would be focused on the President to accentuate full exposure." ( 3 )

Finally, his removal from the middle of the front seat is prima facie evidence that those who moved him were aware that shots were going to be fired from in front of the limo and sought to keep him out of the line of fire.

Thank you for pointing me to the CFTR radio interview with McHugh. I made a transcript of the relevant portion (with a couple of passages highlighted by me):

Quote

[Host] The President's top aide, Brigadier General Godfrey McHugh, would not, as he usually did, ride in the front of the limousine. Today, he, too, would sit further back in the parade. In late 1975, McHugh recalls why the White House wanted it that way.

[McHugh] The first time, they were discussing how the people would be seated in the car to give the President full exposure. They felt that, if the Dallas people saw a young president and his wife, and Connally and his wife, they would warm up to them, and it would be helpful, politically, to the President. So they asked me to ride in a car in the back instead of, as normally I would do, in the front seat between the driver and the Secret Service man in charge of the trip. I asked them why they felt that, and they said, well, this is not a town very friendly to the President, but he can win them over, and we know that it's going to be a beautiful, ah, trip that he will enjoy, they will enjoy seeing him, and that's the way we'd like to do it. And the Secret Service and everyone agreed to it, and of course I was not going to argue with them.

[Q] This was, in your mind, unusual, but under the circumstances you felt that it was understandable?

[McHugh] That's exactly what I thought.

Thou Shalt Not Kill, Part 8 (1976 CFTR JFK assassination radio special)

You indicated in your original post that it was a last minute change by the Secret Service, but it was clearly more of a political (or PR related) choice. I have to also respectfully disagree with your idea that the "removal" of McHugh is prima facie evidence of foreknowledge of the assassination. It seems rather circular to me.

[Ron Bulman]

On 3/17/2023 at 3:48 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

The day of John Kennedy's address to the nation on June 11, 1963, I turned 16, and his speech "woke" me up fully to what my mother had been pointing out since my age of reason ... the appalling discrimination we witnessed (and were de facto party to) in our small town  . . . African Americans had to sit in the balcony of the Royal Theatre, African Americans had to drink from separate fountains at our county courthouse, African Americans were forced to return to the other side of the tracks before sunset or face harassment - ergo the name of their 'neighborhood' Sunset.  Kennedy told me this was wrong, and must stop.

Yet . . .  as late as 1999, GOP Texas Gov. George Bush, then campaigning for a second term, signed off on a sting operation in that small Texas town that resulted in the national headline-making arrests of 16% of the town's African American population.  A corrupt undercover agent testified and some of my classmates received excessive sentences including one who was sentenced to 99 years in prison.

So, any effort on this forum or any other to argue that "wokeness" is an affront to their freedom of speech, or their behavior, in an attempt to reverse the Civil Rights Act — while invoking John Kennedy — should and will be challenged.

Leslie, your story above got me thinking, I've read something about this or like it.  So, I went looking.  If this is it, it's now part of Texas official state history via the TSHA article.  I probably read the Texas Monthly article 21 years ago, before it was finally settled.

TSHA | Tulia Drug Bust of 1999 (tshaonline.org)

Bust Town – Texas Monthly

[Leslie Sharp]

48 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Leslie, your story above got me thinking, I've read something about this or like it.  So, I went looking.  If this is it, it's now part of Texas official state history via the TSHA article.  I probably read the Texas Monthly article 21 years ago, before it was finally settled.

TSHA | Tulia Drug Bust of 1999 (tshaonline.org)

Bust Town – Texas Monthly

That's it, Ron.

The Tulia sting happened on W's watch while governor. When he first announced he was running for president, questions started swirling whether he had used cocaine. You may recall that he denied committing adultery but refused to say if he had used drugs. 

https://www.democracynow.org/2000/10/3/tulia_texas_part_iii_residents_rally

Five years after undercover agent Tom Coleman upended the lives of dozens among Tulia's black population and hundreds of their families and friends, the extraordinary efforts of Friends of Justice with assistance from the ADL pressured Bush, by then president (who must have been shamed privately by the flagrant hypocrisy) to propose elimination of the Byrne Grant Program that had funded the one-man sting operation in Tulia.
https://drugpolicy.org/news/2005/03/april-5th-congressional-briefing-president-bush

Edited March 19, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

19 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I realize that you have not printed out and memorized all my posts.

But I have presented my views on variations of these topics before, probably too many times. 

1. Russiagate Hoax: I agree with the Matt Taibbis, the Glenn Greenwalds, and even the Peter Strzoks, that "there is no there, there."  One can conjecture what happened in certain meetings...but conjectures and accusations are not evidence. The Biden Justice Department has had two years now....We just have to agree to disagree. We could spend hours on even minute points of Russiagate Hoax...did Manafort know Kilimnik was an FSB asset, or even was Kilimnik an FSB asset? Do intel-assets go around telling people, "BTW, I am a spy?" That is called "blowing your cover," and might even have fatal consequences. See also the 24,000-word CJR four-part series on the topic, free online. I largely agree with that article.  

2. My take is Fox-Carlson is on the outs with the national security state---did you see Carlson say Pompeo must have known who killed JFK. Egads! Meanwhile, there are platoons of ex intel-state guys holding forth at CNN and MSNBC. Too many to count. Let's disagree on this one. 

3. Matt Taibbi, and many, many other solid reporters, from across the spectrum, have reviewed the Twittergate Files and concluded Twitter was running government-approved or influenced algorithms , and also silencing ordinary Americans who had non-orthodox views. This is a short-hand statement for what went on. I don't understand why one would turn Twittergate evidence over to authorities---when it is the authorities that are doing the bad stuff. We disagree on this one.

4. On Jan. 6, surely there were crazies in the crowd, and provocateurs, instigators and also unknown numbers of government assets. The indisputable Mr. Buffalo Horn videos show an inexplicable episode--as if Mr BF was being shown around for photo-op purposes, to be the face of the occupation. Other videos indisputably show Capitol Police opening barricades. I could go on about the Capitol Police showing up light and then standing down, and they report to the legislative branch. There is no evidence that the Trump people were connected to the Jan 6 scrum. I disapprove of violence in any form, btw.  

We are worlds apart in our perspectives and what we consider relevant facts. That's fine...this is a forum. I look forward to your contributions. 

3. . . . I don’t know why one would turn Twittergate evidence over to authorities . . . 

I don’t know, Ben, perhaps to avoid vigilante justice? 

Lock Her Up — 2015

Hank Mike Pence — Jan 6, 2020
I Will Be Your Retribution — Trump, 2023
 

4. . . . There is no evidence that the Trump people were connected to the Jan 6 scrum.

Your argument is not fact-based.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Benjamin Cole]

15 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

3. I don’t know why one would turn Twittergate evidence over to authorities . . . 

I don’t know, Ben, perhaps to avoid vigilante justice? 

Lock Her Up — 2015

Hank Mike Pence — Jan 6, 2020

I Will Be Your Retribution — Trump, 2023

LS--

I honor your contributions to the EF-JFK, and I often see your point view even if I disagree, but on this one, I am puzzled.

OK, short-story version is Matt Taibbi and many other independent journalists from a wide range across the spectrum, review Twitter rules, per-Musk.  

The independent journalists---who in general consider themselves bound to report on government, and not become government assets---uncover that federal assets, and party assets, have been effecting and affecting Twitter algorithms and content. 

OK, Twitter is becoming a propaganda arm of the state or major parties? The threat is certainly there, and appears more than a threat. 

Good reporting. Be advised, I say. 

Journalists should never, ever become de facto investigators for the state. Their first and only obligation to report what they found, except in dire cases of national security or similar and immediate life-threatening circumstances. 

Taibbi & Co. should turn their investigations over to federal authorities and go mute? It is the federal panopticon that they are worried about. I am too, btw. 

LS, we just have to agree to disagree on this one, but I look forward to your contributions to EF. 

I hope we can welcome a wide range of views and political outlooks into the EF. A big tent. 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Ron Bulman]

56 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

That's it, Ron.

The Tulia sting happened on W's watch while governor. When he first announced he was running for president, questions started swirling whether he had used cocaine. You may recall that he denied committing adultery but refused to say if he had used drugs. 

https://www.democracynow.org/2000/10/3/tulia_texas_part_iii_residents_rally

Five years after undercover agent Tom Coleman upended the lives of dozens among Tulia's black population and hundreds of their families and friends, the extraordinary efforts of Friends of Justice with assistance from the ADL pressured Bush, by then president (who must have been shamed privately by the flagrant hypocrisy) to propose elimination of the Byrne Grant Program that had funded the one-man sting operation in Tulia.
https://drugpolicy.org/news/2005/03/april-5th-congressional-briefing-president-bush

Coleman never got what he deserved, prison time himself, It get's deeper I discovered with more reading.  At least all but 2 were ultimately freed and they shared in some compensation.

I've been through Tulia going from Turkey and Silverton to Palo Duro Canyon SP.  Miles and miles of Texas.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Coleman never got what he deserved, prison time himself, It get's deeper I discovered with more reading.  At least all but 2 were ultimately freed and they shared in some compensation.

I've been through Tulia going from Turkey and Silverton to Palo Duro Canyon SP.  Miles and miles of Texas.

 

We played a loop of Keen at my mother's gathering ... The Road Goes on Forever, Gringo Honeymoon .. her faves.

Not many know Turkey!!

My father irrigated and and then farmed dryland between Tulia and Silverton for years before he bought the Magnolia Oil distribution county.  They attended the first national Mobil Oil jobber convention held at the newly opened Cabana Motel, Dallas '61 or '62, I forget. My mother came home telling stories about 'the mafia'.

Did you know Keen is related to Lovett and they're related to Robert A. Lovett - guy who essentially chose Kennedy's cabinet, and McCloy's college roommate?

Edited March 19, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

I honor your contributions to the EF-JFK, and I often see your point view even if I disagree, but on this one, I am puzzled.

OK, short-story version is Matt Taibbi and many other independent journalists from a wide range across the spectrum, review Twitter rules, per-Musk.  

The independent journalists---who in general consider themselves bound to report on government, and not become government assets---uncover that federal assets, and party assets, have been effecting and affecting Twitter algorithms and content. 

OK, Twitter is becoming a propaganda arm of the state or major parties? The threat is certainly there, and appears more than a threat. 

Good reporting. Be advised, I say. 

Journalists should never, ever become de facto investigators for the state. Their first and only obligation to report what they found, except in dire cases of national security or similar and immediate life-threatening circumstances. 

Taibbi & Co. should turn their investigations over to federal authorities and go mute? It is the federal panopticon that they are worried about. I am too, btw. 

LS, we just have to agree to disagree on this one, but I look forward to your contributions to EF. 

I hope we can welcome a wide range of views and political outlooks into the EF. A big tent. 

 

Ben, I'm at a disadvantage because I don't know if you took the same position when 16 of the 17 intel agencies concurred that the Putin regime had infiltrated social network platforms and strengthened Trump's base exponentially, winning him the 2016 election.

Ready for my "view" on Musk? He doesn't have a clue what constitutes a democracy.  He is a profit driven egomaniacal toxic capitalist, in my view, so I was all in favor of any precautions the appropriate agencies took to monitor Twitter — as they should have all platforms in the lead up to the 2016 election as well. By 2020 they may have overcompensated, and you may argue goose and gander, but I say it's all one gander that threatens our fragile democracy.

Notice Meta allowed Trump back on just as he's about to be indicted?  Surely you see the move in play?