David Talbot: Dulles Brothers "Nazi Collaborators"

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Interesting last paragraph. It’s not too hard to see how distasteful it might have been for him to support Humphrey. Like Bernie supporting Clinton or Biden perhaps. 
one last clarification - do you think RFK ruined McCarthy?

Of course the Nixon Humphrey election in 1968 was very close, with Humphrey closing in in the last couple of weeks.
Humphrey was LBJ's VP and was tied to LBJ's Vietnam war policy, and the Democrats were suffering mightily in the polls because of the riots at the Chicago Convention.

Both of these hurt Humphrey. I wonder if Mc Carthy had supported Humphrey even a month earlier. Would that have been enough to pull Humphrey over the top? It's really a shame because if Humphrey had become President, we almost certainly would have had expanded Health Care 50 years ago and a single payer system because that issue was his baby!

Regarding RFK ruining Mc Carthy, there's no question about that. But it is interesting that just before the California primary, Mc Carthy did beat RFK in Oregon!

But if RFK didn't enter the race, the Democratic establishment  would have gone with the incumbent LBJ. Because of the sequence of events, I think LBJ dropped out because he feared running against RFK, and had had enough of the protests and the fact that he had rightfully been turned into a villain for his Vietnam War policy.

[Joe Bauer]

55 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Of course the Nixon Humphrey election in 1968 was very close, with Humphrey closing in in the last couple of weeks.
Humphrey was LBJ's VP and was tied to LBJ's Vietnam war policy, and the Democrats were suffering mightily in the polls because of the riots at the Chicago Convention.

Both of these hurt Humphrey. I wonder if Mc Carthy had supported Humphrey even a month earlier. Would that have been enough to pull Humphrey over the top? It's really a shame because if Humphrey had become President, we almost certainly would have had expanded Health Care 50 years ago and a single payer system because that issue was his baby!

Regarding RFK ruining Mc Carthy, there's no question about that. But it is interesting that just before the California primary, Mc Carthy did beat RFK in Oregon!

But if RFK didn't enter the race, the Democratic establishment  would have gone with the incumbent LBJ. Because of the sequence of events, I think LBJ dropped out because he feared running against RFK, and had had enough of the protests and the fact that he had rightfully been turned into a villain for his Vietnam War policy.

It is a proven fact that a certain amount of voters actually vote based simply on their personal visceral feelings about a candidate's looks, and also but to a lesser degree  their speaking manner and personal demeanor.

I would guess 5 to 10 % of voters use this as their main motivation to vote for one candidate over the other.

Bill Clinton benefitted from this aspect of voter motivation.

Hubert H. Humphrey did not.

Even Humphrey's "name" sounded a bit comical. Rhymed with "Humpty Dumpty."

And his voice pitch was also kind of irritatingly scratchy, imo anyways.

Still, I am sure that in typical Nixon dirty tricks ways, the repubs did their thing in that election to sabotage Humphrey's vote count just enough to guarantee his loss.

Nixon's dirty trick team was in full operational mode well before the 1972 election.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Brancato]

14 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Of course the Nixon Humphrey election in 1968 was very close, with Humphrey closing in in the last couple of weeks.
Humphrey was LBJ's VP and was tied to LBJ's Vietnam war policy, and the Democrats were suffering mightily in the polls because of the riots at the Chicago Convention.

Both of these hurt Humphrey. I wonder if Mc Carthy had supported Humphrey even a month earlier. Would that have been enough to pull Humphrey over the top? It's really a shame because if Humphrey had become President, we almost certainly would have had expanded Health Care 50 years ago and a single payer system because that issue was his baby!

Regarding RFK ruining Mc Carthy, there's no question about that. But it is interesting that just before the California primary, Mc Carthy did beat RFK in Oregon!

But if RFK didn't enter the race, the Democratic establishment  would have gone with the incumbent LBJ. Because of the sequence of events, I think LBJ dropped out because he feared running against RFK, and had had enough of the protests and the fact that he had rightfully been turned into a villain for his Vietnam War policy.

How is there ‘no question’ that RFK ruined McCarthy? I have friends who go a step further and say that RFK should have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the 1968 primaries because it muddied the waters for the anti-war candidate. You point out that had he followed that advice the battle would have been between LBJ and McCarthy for the Democratic nomination - unless LBJ would have dropped out anyway for the reasons you stated. I’m not sure where you stand on this. You’ve covered your bases pretty well, but basically you blame RFK anyway. Why do Democrats insist on limiting their possibilities? It’s been true my entire lifetime, and it’s always cast as politics being the art of the possible, as if nominating a true alternative candidate would always be doomed. This happened the Bernie Sanders in 2016, and my friends who would have welcomed a Sanders presidency were nevertheless happy he didn’t get the nomination because he had no chance in a general election. I simply reject this kind of reasoning (not saying that would be your reasoning) as gutless. We are still run by the Military Industrial Complex as a result of being afraid to take them on. We get what we deserve - that is an axiom I do agree with. 

[Roger Odisio]

8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

How is there ‘no question’ that RFK ruined McCarthy? I have friends who go a step further and say that RFK should have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the 1968 primaries because it muddied the waters for the anti-war candidate. You point out that had he followed that advice the battle would have been between LBJ and McCarthy for the Democratic nomination - unless LBJ would have dropped out anyway for the reasons you stated. I’m not sure where you stand on this. You’ve covered your bases pretty well, but basically you blame RFK anyway. Why do Democrats insist on limiting their possibilities? It’s been true my entire lifetime, and it’s always cast as politics being the art of the possible, as if nominating a true alternative candidate would always be doomed. This happened the Bernie Sanders in 2016, and my friends who would have welcomed a Sanders presidency were nevertheless happy he didn’t get the nomination because he had no chance in a general election. I simply reject this kind of reasoning (not saying that would be your reasoning) as gutless. We are still run by the Military Industrial Complex as a result of being afraid to take them on. We get what we deserve - that is an axiom I do agree with. 

Not voting for Bernie in '16 because he couldn't beat Trump was not only gutless reasoning, Paul, it was wrong. Former Congressman Alan Grayson (remember him?) commissioned a national poll of 1600 registered voters by Gravis Marketing, an established pollster, two days before the election in '16. The result was Bernie 56%, Trump 44%.  That's a landslide. Even if off a bit, it leaves no doubt about who would have won.

Needless to say that information was buried, primarily by the frenzy Hillary stirred up about Russiagate. But you can still find it on the internet.

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 8/12/2023 at 4:22 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Paul, I was in High School and  into Eugene Mc Carthy's anti war campaign. Then after the New Hampshire primary showed LBJ was weak because of the Vietnam War. Bobby entered the race. I was a little bit pissed because  Bobby was a johnny come lately to the anti war cause, but I was young and sort of facing that this was the way political things happen.  But I did regret that Mc Carthy was the first politician to make a political anti war movement, (sort of similar economically  to 2016 Bernie Sanders) and yet would be ultimately swept aside, but I knew the force was with Bobby, 

 

Then in the next few months, I liked where his campaign was going and what I saw was a change of consciousness , he befriended Caesar Chavez and he was campaigning in California a lot, and he was given the mantle of the poor and dispossessed, and not just the anti war movement. Being into both of them, and knowing Bobby was going to step on toes which is what I saw myself  sort of doing in my small way, I really looked forward to his campaign and beating Nixon again.

Actually a lot of politicians who were young at that time will say they entered politics because of Bobby Kennedy's influence including Biden.

 

Apparently i haven't "covered my bases" well enough Paul.  So  I enclosed what I wrote so you might read it again.I  wasn't even 18 and you had to be 21 at the time to vote. I first liked the guy who first started the political movement in opposition to the war, Eugene Mc Carthy, who was a super long shot!

 

So I liked the guy who started the anti war political movement that exposed LBJ's weakness in the New Hampshire primary that caused RFK to enter the race. If it's ok with you Paul, I did have some allegiance to him. He was the original, and I compared his campaign in some ways, to Bernie Sanders.

 

Paul: but basically you blame RFK anyway.

False, I assigned no blame at all.

 

Paul: and it’s always cast as politics being the art of the possible, as if nominating a true alternative candidate would always be doomed.

False, I never even implied that. It's just the opposite. I thought RFK upon entering the campaign had an infinitely better chance of beating LBJ than Mc Carthy, and I looked forward to that. It was going to be the battle of the base against the establishment of the Democratic party.  I did not see RFK as a long shot at all!  I had been prepared to back a much greater long shot. But that situation lasted, I think for about 2 weeks when LBJ then dropped out.

And I also mentioned to you that I liked the changes that I thought was going on in RFK and his campaign in California, read again.

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 8/12/2023 at 12:50 PM, Roger Odisio said:

Junior says his father never believed the Warren Commission fairy tale.

 Of course, he was only 14. You're now being told by Talbot he first learned all this from Talbot at the age of 50 in 2004! You realize now all of his knowledge is from Talbot and other Dulles did it authors? I don't want this to sound conspiratorial, but in regards to these matters,  he's being groomed. But we don't have to focus on that.

 

Roger, I've been wondering whether to comment. I admire your spirit and I want to be kind and constructive.. But I see a lot of projection here.

 

On 8/11/2023 at 10:08 PM, Roger Odisio said:

He knew the enemy well.  He had seen everything JFK saw. It's hard to imagine any two people being closer.  And so his first instinct upon hearing of the murder was that the CIA war machine, his brother had been fighting, did it.

Bobby was there every step of the way with JFK.  He saw and heard everything JFK was confronted with.  It's laughable to even consider he would be fooled into accepting the obvious lies of the WR.

He knew who his brother's, and now his, enemies were and how powerful they were.  That wasn't any secret.  They murdered a popular sitting president and got away with it.  

 

 

 

So they know completely what's going down at all times and they're not Little Red Riding Hoods  riding through the dark forest of CIA, NSA agents who always seem to suck them in like Sheridan, who tried to  hoodwink Bobby to accept that Garrison's case was a fraud, and after 30 years, went to his deathbed, keeping that a secret as Jim Di says?

heh heh       That jokes not on you Roger!

 

On 8/12/2023 at 12:50 PM, Roger Odisio said:

The profound change in the direction of the country was already apparent in '68.  RFK knew how important it was to get to the bottom of his brother's murder before anything could be done about that.  No matter how "full" his plate would be as president.

Ok, so first things first. Let's put the Vietnam War and the race riots on  hold and get to the bottom of this, right?.

 

Ok, the fun's over. This is the focus! If you didn't know before, you know now that you are talking to someone who actually lived through that era.

 

On 8/12/2023 at 12:50 PM, Roger Odisio said:

The profound change in the direction of the country was already apparent in '68.  RFK knew how important it was to get to the bottom of his brother's murder before anything could be done about that.

Honestly Roger, That sounds like the kind of impression you would only  get  by listening to some of the  JFKA centric  "parachuting" into the 60's  kind of distortion of some deluded JFKA  authors.  I'm going to give you a more comprehensive, rather sobering   alternative viewpoint.

 

On 8/12/2023 at 12:50 PM, Roger Odisio said:

RFK knew how important it was to get to the bottom of his brother's murder before anything could be done about that.  No matter how "full" his plate would be as president.

I can almost get from that, the other issues 1.The Vietnam War and 2. the race riots were just a distraction from the JFKA.

But  I know you've never seen anything like this in your life.

"About 15 million Americans took part in the demonstration of October 15, making it the largest protests in a single day up to that point. A second round of "Moratorium" demonstrations was held on November 15 and attracted more people than the first."

There was more civil unrest than anything we've seen since, including now. And we're just talking Americans, Roger. We're not even talking about world protest! I'm sure the number of Vietnam protesters in the 1965-74 period  was well over 100 million. Who is motivated to protest the "American war machine" now? Nobody! .

How many people were in the civil rights marches in the 60's. I don't have total estimates in any case. But I did get this.

 "Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr. More than 200,000 people of all races congregated in Washington, D. C. for the peaceful march with the main purpose of forcing civil rights legislation and establishing job equality for everyone."

I would say the total number of people protesting at  Civil Rights events everywhere in the 60's could be in the 10's of millions. And of course, there were dozens of race riots, with  deaths in almost every major city in the second half of the 60's!  Of course, it's not a fair comparison, but how many people protested the Warren report in the 60's? Zero!

 It was left to the grit of small time people. A truly grass roots movement.

 

But these numbers matter to politicians. Maybe you can better gauge now the scope of the problems facing RFK when  he would take office. This Vietnam War and race riots aren't a joke. And the JFKA wasn't the elephant in the room, but in the overall picture, maybe a gnat!  I don't think  establishing an investigation into his brother's death would even be in the Congress's top 10! It's his own project. He'll get heat from it unless it produces definitive results.

 

So you're a Dulles did it guy?. So bringing Allen Dulles to justice, is no sweat? Are you kidding me? Do you realize that would take years? He's about to die anyway.

 

We currently have a case in Georgia about fixing an election that at least up to now, it's taking them 3 years to make up their minds   if they even want to  indict where there's a smoking gun tape that's about as hard evidence as you could have and they can  subpoena e mails, which didn't exist back then. 

 

And in this case, if  RFK fails, in what his detractors would then call a self indulgent witch hunt. That could jeopardize his peace plan and a lot of efforts he could make to eventually unify the country. Which is a goal that involved 200 million people!

Talbot's "foregone conclusion"---no way!

 

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Not voting for Bernie in '16 because he couldn't beat Trump was not only gutless reasoning, Paul, it was wrong. Former Congressman Alan Grayson (remember him?) commissioned a national poll of 1600 registered voters by Gravis Marketing, an established pollster, two days before the election in '16. The result was Bernie 56%, Trump 44%.  That's a landslide. Even if off a bit, it leaves no doubt about who would have won.

Needless to say that information was buried, primarily by the frenzy Hillary stirred up about Russiagate. But you can still find it on the internet.

I do remember - thanks for the reminder on Grayson. What loyal democratic voters seem to misunderstand is the value of a candidate that also appeals to voters who would normally vote Republican. Bernie spoke to them, Hilary did not. A certain candidate today speaks to them and gets lambasted for it. I’m so sick of the politics of division. Did JFK travel to Republican strongholds? Yes. Now, candidates stick to their assigned ‘colors’. Bernie would have gotten pretty much every older Democrat plus some libertarians and working class Republicans, plus he would have energized the younger Democrats. 

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 Of course, he was only 14. You're now being told by Talbot he first learned all this from Talbot at the age of 50 in 2004! You realize now all of his knowledge is from Talbot and other Dulles did it authors? I don't want this to sound conspiratorial, but in regards to these matters,  he's being groomed. But we don't have to focus on that.

 

Roger, I've been wondering whether to comment. I admire your spirit and I want to be kind and constructive.. But I see a lot of projection here.

 

 

So they know completely what's going down at all times and they're not Little Red Riding Hoods  riding through the dark forest of CIA, NSA agents who always seem to suck them in like Sheridan, who tried to  hoodwink Bobby to accept that Garrison's case was a fraud, and after 30 years, went to his deathbed, keeping that a secret as Jim Di says?

heh heh       That jokes not on you Roger!

 

Ok, so first things first. Let's put the Vietnam War and the race riots on  hold and get to the bottom of this, right?.

 

Ok, the fun's over. This is the focus! If you didn't know before, you know now that you are talking to someone who actually lived through that era.

 

Honestly Roger, That sounds like the kind of impression you would only  get  by listening to some of the  JFKA centric  "parachuting" into the 60's  kind of distortion of some deluded JFKA  authors.  I'm going to give you a more comprehensive, rather sobering   alternative viewpoint.

 

I can almost get from that, the other issues 1.The Vietnam War and 2. the race riots were just a distraction from the JFKA.

But  I know you've never seen anything like this in your life.

"About 15 million Americans took part in the demonstration of October 15, making it the largest protests in a single day up to that point. A second round of "Moratorium" demonstrations was held on November 15 and attracted more people than the first."

There was more civil unrest than anything we've seen since, including now. And we're just talking Americans, Roger. We're not even talking about world protest! I'm sure the number of Vietnam protesters in the 1965-74 period  was well over 100 million. Who is motivated to protest the "American war machine" now? Nobody! .

How many people were in the civil rights marches in the 60's. I don't have total estimates in any case. But I did get this.

 "Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr. More than 200,000 people of all races congregated in Washington, D. C. for the peaceful march with the main purpose of forcing civil rights legislation and establishing job equality for everyone."

I would say the total number of people protesting at  Civil Rights events everywhere in the 60's could be in the 10's of millions. And of course, there were dozens of race riots, with  deaths in almost every major city in the second half of the 60's!  Of course, it's not a fair comparison, but how many people protested the Warren report in the 60's? Zero!

 It was left to the grit of small time people. A truly grass roots movement.

 

But these numbers matter to politicians. Maybe you can better gauge now the scope of the problems facing RFK when  he would take office. This Vietnam War and race riots aren't a joke. And the JFKA wasn't the elephant in the room, but in the overall picture, maybe a gnat!  I don't think  establishing an investigation into his brother's death would even be in the Congress's top 10! It's his own project. He'll get heat from it unless it produces definitive results.

 

So you're a Dulles did it guy?. So bringing Allen Dulles to justice, is no sweat? Are you kidding me? Do you realize that would take years? He's about to die anyway.

 

We currently have a case in Georgia about fixing an election that at least up to now, it's taking them 3 years to make up their minds   if they even want to  indict where there's a smoking gun tape that's about as hard evidence as you could have and they can  subpoena e mails, which didn't exist back then. 

 

And in this case, if  RFK fails, in what his detractors would then call a self indulgent witch hunt. That could jeopardize his peace plan and a lot of efforts he could make to eventually unify the country. Which is a goal that involved 200 million people!

Talbot's "foregone conclusion"---no way!

 

 

 

 

Kirk - what happened leading up to the Iraq war? Massive protests here and abroad, by some accounts the largest ever. Do you recall the media making fun of SF protestors? Did it do any good? Our failure to stop what was to become the worst disaster was numbing. things now are so much worse than 1968. Then we thought we could make a difference, and the major tool to nullify the peace movement was assassination, and a few campus shootings, Altamount - what am I leaving out? Oh yeah, the 1970’s, Congressional investigations that were revealing but failed to move the needle. And led to George Bush taking over the CIA, the AFIO and the October Surprise, and Ronald Reagan. Somehow, after 9/11, people rallied again to try and stop the war machine. We were right. The NYT etc was wrong. Surprised ? No, same old, We are living in a fascist state, Talbot is one of the few good guys, period. 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

.Needless to say that information was buried, primarily by the frenzy Hillary stirred up about Russiagate. But you can still find it on the internet.

How many times did the Russia-hacked-the-DNC story make the cable news cycle (any story reported and repeated throughout a 9am EST - 9am EST 24 hour cycle) during the 2016 campaign?

Twice: 6/14-15 and 7/24-25.

On October 7, 2016 the Obama Administration formally accused Russia of meddling in the US election.  A half hour later the Access Hollywood tape dropped and a half hour after that the Podesta e-mails hit the airwaves.

”RussiaGate” was buried, never made the cable news cycle over the last 70 days of the campaign.

 

[Paul Brancato]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

How many times did the Russia-hacked-the-DNC story make the cable news cycle (any story reported and repeated throughout a 9am EST - 9am EST 24 hour cycle) during the 2016 campaign?

Twice: 6/14-15 and 7/24-25.

On October 7, 2016 the Obama Administration formally accused Russia of meddling in the US election.  A half hour later the Access Hollywood tape dropped and a half hour after that the Podesta e-mails hit the airwaves.

”RussiaGate” was buried, never made the cable news cycle over the last 70 days of the campaign.

 

Yes. I remember the enormous frustration I felt during that campaign and the bizarre flow, or lack thereof, of the pertinent information. Whatever faith remaining in media coverage died at that time for me. A few years later I unplugged the news. Now if I take a peek I find it laughable. Talking heads weighing in with no depth, paid for by unknown entities, lawyers in the background negotiating the terms of their media appearances, unknown writers and editors. At first it was just Fox, but it was at this time that I realized it went far deeper than that. PBS news? Marginally better, sometimes. And now, we want to pick at David Talbot? 

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 Of course, he was only 14. You're now being told by Talbot he first learned all this from Talbot at the age of 50 in 2004! You realize now all of his knowledge is from Talbot and other Dulles did it authors? I don't want this to sound conspiratorial, but in regards to these matters,  he's being groomed. But we don't have to focus on that.

 

Roger, I've been wondering whether to comment. I admire your spirit and I want to be kind and constructive.. But I see a lot of projection here.

 

 

So they know completely what's going down at all times and they're not Little Red Riding Hoods  riding through the dark forest of CIA, NSA agents who always seem to suck them in like Sheridan, who tried to  hoodwink Bobby to accept that Garrison's case was a fraud, and after 30 years, went to his deathbed, keeping that a secret as Jim Di says?

heh heh       That jokes not on you Roger!

 

Ok, so first things first. Let's put the Vietnam War and the race riots on  hold and get to the bottom of this, right?.

 

Ok, the fun's over. This is the focus! If you didn't know before, you know now that you are talking to someone who actually lived through that era.

 

Honestly Roger, That sounds like the kind of impression you would only  get  by listening to some of the  JFKA centric  "parachuting" into the 60's  kind of distortion of some deluded JFKA  authors.  I'm going to give you a more comprehensive, rather sobering   alternative viewpoint.

 

I can almost get from that, the other issues 1.The Vietnam War and 2. the race riots were just a distraction from the JFKA.

But  I know you've never seen anything like this in your life.

"About 15 million Americans took part in the demonstration of October 15, making it the largest protests in a single day up to that point. A second round of "Moratorium" demonstrations was held on November 15 and attracted more people than the first."

There was more civil unrest than anything we've seen since, including now. And we're just talking Americans, Roger. We're not even talking about world protest! I'm sure the number of Vietnam protesters in the 1965-74 period  was well over 100 million. Who is motivated to protest the "American war machine" now? Nobody! .

How many people were in the civil rights marches in the 60's. I don't have total estimates in any case. But I did get this.

 "Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr. More than 200,000 people of all races congregated in Washington, D. C. for the peaceful march with the main purpose of forcing civil rights legislation and establishing job equality for everyone."

I would say the total number of people protesting at  Civil Rights events everywhere in the 60's could be in the 10's of millions. And of course, there were dozens of race riots, with  deaths in almost every major city in the second half of the 60's!  Of course, it's not a fair comparison, but how many people protested the Warren report in the 60's? Zero!

 It was left to the grit of small time people. A truly grass roots movement.

 

But these numbers matter to politicians. Maybe you can better gauge now the scope of the problems facing RFK when  he would take office. This Vietnam War and race riots aren't a joke. And the JFKA wasn't the elephant in the room, but in the overall picture, maybe a gnat!  I don't think  establishing an investigation into his brother's death would even be in the Congress's top 10! It's his own project. He'll get heat from it unless it produces definitive results.

 

So you're a Dulles did it guy?. So bringing Allen Dulles to justice, is no sweat? Are you kidding me? Do you realize that would take years? He's about to die anyway.

 

We currently have a case in Georgia about fixing an election that at least up to now, it's taking them 3 years to make up their minds   if they even want to  indict where there's a smoking gun tape that's about as hard evidence as you could have and they can  subpoena e mails, which didn't exist back then. 

 

And in this case, if  RFK fails, in what his detractors would then call a self indulgent witch hunt. That could jeopardize his peace plan and a lot of efforts he could make to eventually unify the country. Which is a goal that involved 200 million people!

Talbot's "foregone conclusion"---no way!

 

 

 

 

RO: The profound change in the direction of the country was already apparent in '68.  RFK knew how important it was to get to the bottom of his brother's murder before anything could be done about that.

KG:  Honestly Roger, That sounds like the kind of impression you would only  get  by listening to some of the  JFKA centric  "parachuting" into the 60's  kind of distortion of some deluded JFKA  authors.  I'm going to give you a more comprehensive, rather sobering   alternative viewpoint.

  On 8/12/2023 at 3:50 PM, Roger Odisio said:

RFK knew how important it was to get to the bottom of his brother's murder before anything could be done about that.  No matter how "full" his plate would be as president.

KG:  I can almost get from that, the other issues 1.The Vietnam War and 2. the race riots were just a distraction from the JFKA.

But  I know you've never seen anything like this in your life.

"About 15 million Americans took part in the demonstration of October 15, making it the largest protests in a single day up to that point. A second round of "Moratorium" demonstrations was held on November 15 and attracted more people than the first."

There was more civil unrest than anything we've seen since, including now. And we're just talking Americans, Roger. We're not even talking about world protest! I'm sure the number of Vietnam protesters in the 1965-74 period  was well over 100 million. Who is motivated to protest the "American war machine" now? Nobody! .

RO:  There's that "parachuting" phrase again, implying I inserted myself unannounced into something I neither knew anything about nor understood

Let me just cut that dooky short.  I was in DC for the big Moratorium in '69.  I had gotten out of the army a few months before.  I was on the Boston Common in '70 to hear Abbie Hoffman look at the John Hancock tower and say John Hancock was a revolutionary, not a f'ing life insurance salesman.

I'm older than you, Kirk. I've seen more.  Just so you know.  You'll need a new approach.

I'm going to let the rest of your ill thought out jibberish go, except for your opening paragraph.  Junior is being groomed by "Talbott and other Dulles did it authors". All of his knowledge has been gotten from them. He's just an empty vessel is he?  You don't know what you're talking about.

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

How many times did the Russia-hacked-the-DNC story make the cable news cycle (any story reported and repeated throughout a 9am EST - 9am EST 24 hour cycle) during the 2016 campaign?

Twice: 6/14-15 and 7/24-25.

On October 7, 2016 the Obama Administration formally accused Russia of meddling in the US election.  A half hour later the Access Hollywood tape dropped and a half hour after that the Podesta e-mails hit the airwaves.

”RussiaGate” was buried, never made the cable news cycle over the last 70 days of the campaign.

 

Russiagate was far more than the lie Hillary concocted at the Dem convention that Russia hacked the DNC server, in order to divert attention from what was in the emails.  When she lost, the story morphed into all the ways Russia conspired with Trump to steal the election from her, and it lasted for years with the help of media stenographers.

To be clear I should not have used the word "primarily". The story about the poll showing Bernie would have won was going to be buried regardless.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Russiagate was far more than the lie Hillary concocted at the Dem convention that Russia hacked the DNC server, in order to divert attention from what was in the emails. 

I’m aware of what RussiaGate is.  You were referring to a period prior to the election and cited a fictional “frenzy”.  RussiaGate only made two news cycles over the last five months of the campaign, nothing over the last 70 days.

That’s a frenzy?

The only frenzy prior to the election was the Hillary e-mail story.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

When she lost, the story morphed into all the ways Russia conspired with Trump to steal the election from her, and it lasted for years with the help of media stenographers.

And the unchallenged House testimony of Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, the company that investigated the hack of DNC e-mails in 2016, in regard to the Russian hacker Fancy Bear.

<q>

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.  </q>

Russians did indeed hack the DNC in order to “set up” the e-mail exfiltration by non-State actors.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Cliff Varnell