The RFK Jr. Presidential Campaign

[Leslie Sharp]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Dick Russell's observations regarding Politico can be verified, checked out. You can read Politico and draw your own conclusions. 

Politico (stylized in all caps), known originally as The Politico, is a Washington metropolitan area, U.S., based politics focused newspaper company owned since 2021 by German publisher Axel Springer SE. It covers politics and policy in the United States and internationally.

In sharp contrast, nothing in or about the Laffite datebook can be verified. 

Unfortunately, there it stands.

 

 

 

 

The topic is RFK Jr.'s rise in the polls.  Why won't you speak to the concern that he's backed by Libertarians with less than admirable histories, which many argue are anti-democracy. 2024 will not be about party; 2024 will pit democracy vs. authoritarianism. 

I suspect reasonable people would agree that you've not made the case in this post that Politico is an intel operation. Conversely, astute journalists the calibre of Dick can listen to Tucker Carlson and draw subjective conclusions he's a fascist propagandist; would that be sufficient to persuade you that he is?

(Please do not misrepresent Dick's analysis of the db: he identifies 8 entries, most of which dovetail with his own exclusive research, and walks the reader  step by step through his reasoning that (short of some elaborate sociopathic mind game hoax - my words not his) Lafitte had information that wasn't in the public domain until the mid-1970s. . . . Anticipating your retort, I recommend we resume this discussion on the Lafitte Datebook thread  launched some months ago.)

[Sandy Larsen]

39 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The topic is RFK Jr.'s rise in the polls.  Why won't you speak to the concern that he's backed by Libertarians with less than admirable histories, which many argue are anti-democracy. 2024 will not be about party; 2024 will pit democracy vs. authoritarianism. 

I suspect reasonable people would agree that you've not made the case in this post that Politico is an intel operation. Conversely, astute journalists the calibre of Dick can listen to Tucker Carlson and draw subjective conclusions he's a fascist propagandist; would that be sufficient to persuade you that he is?

(Please do not misrepresent Dick's analysis of the db: he identifies 8 entries, most of which dovetail with his own exclusive research, and walks the reader  step by step through his reasoning that (short of some elaborate sociopathic mind game hoax - my words not his) Lafitte had information that wasn't in the public domain until the mid-1970s. . . . Anticipating your retort, I recommend we resume this discussion on the Lafitte Datebook thread  launched some months ago.)

 

Leslie,

Just so you know, this is a special, experimental thread. I have set a rule that nobody should say anything bad about any politician or political party.

If you say something that is demonstrably factual, that would be okay. But not if there is a negative commentary attached to it.

Thanks.

 

[Ron Bulman]

While some commenting have, anyone wanting to debate this topic or the assassination(s) themselves in the future should consider making a donation to the site.  Contributions have stalled the last three days with enough raised to fund an additional five months.  There are a lot of us out there.  Just a few dollars from several more could keep the place alive another year or two.  The site costs $70 a month.  Some people spend that much on coffee.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Ron Bulman

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The topic is RFK Jr.'s rise in the polls.  Why won't you speak to the concern that he's backed by Libertarians with less than admirable histories, which many argue are anti-democracy. 2024 will not be about party; 2024 will pit democracy vs. authoritarianism. 

I suspect reasonable people would agree that you've not made the case in this post that Politico is an intel operation. Conversely, astute journalists the calibre of Dick can listen to Tucker Carlson and draw subjective conclusions he's a fascist propagandist; would that be sufficient to persuade you that he is?

(Please do not misrepresent Dick's analysis of the db: he identifies 8 entries, most of which dovetail with his own exclusive research, and walks the reader  step by step through his reasoning that (short of some elaborate sociopathic mind game hoax - my words not his) Lafitte had information that wasn't in the public domain until the mid-1970s. . . . Anticipating your retort, I recommend we resume this discussion on the Lafitte Datebook thread  launched some months ago.)

Again, I refuse to talk politics on EF-JFKA (ground rules), unless it pertains to opening up of the JFK Records Act, or the "Op Mocking" of RFK2, as RFK2 would open up the JFK Records Act. 

I have nothing to say about the financial backers of RFK2, Biden or Trump, except the bulk of money will come from wealthy backers, and if you look at money flowing into those three families, either in campaigns or personally, you will likely find some squalid results. 

Side note: Jacob Hornberger, an arch libertarian, has been a pillar in the JFKA research community for years. 

Inside the EF-JFKA we should welcome the full range of the political spectrum. 

Attempts to stigmatize certain political stripes should be avoided. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Leslie,

Just so you know, this is a special, experimental thread. I have set a rule that nobody should say anything bad about any politician or political party.

If you say something that is demonstrably factual, that would be okay. But not if there is a negative commentary attached to it.

Thanks.

 

 
Thanks Sandy.

But, respectfully, how can one distinguish what should and shouldn't be scrutinized on a thread related a political candidate for the 2024 presidential election? I'm not criticizing Kennedy; I'm concerned about certain among his primary financial backers.

I think we all agree that no candidate gains in the polls without financial backing, The funding behind Kennedy's rise in the polls  is disturbingly unique in that significant sums derive from the very elements responsible for the political chaos of Jan 6 and attempts to overthrow our elected government, e.g. election deniers.

2020 election deniers should be under scrutiny ergo germane to deliberations focused on 2024 candidates.

(Feel free to delete this comment if you find it pollutes the experiment.)

 

Patrick Byrne has contributed large sums to the RFK Jr. campaign. Kennedy and those who run his PACs cannot be oblivious to the fact Byrne continues to sow doubt in the 2020 election. He has even recently walked back his harshest assessments of Donald Trump to the extent he says he regrets not having been more receptive.

Byrne along with Sidney Powell (who admitted guilt in the GA RICO case) and Gen. Michael Flynn inveigled themselves into the Oval Office on December 18 to strategize how to overthrow the 2020 election - up to and including proposal to mobilize the military to seize voting machines.  One of Byrne's current endeavors, America Project, flagrantly advances the ideology that paved the way for Trump's MAGA movement; how does Kennedy rationalize Byrne's financial support of his own candidacy?  https://americaproject.com/election-integrity2/

Founder of Conservative Colorado Think Tank Shared Election Conspiracy Video With John Eastman After Jan. 6. — Erik Maulbetsch, Colorado Times Recorder, Nov. 22, 2022

The conservative Common Sense Institute (CSI) says its rigorous research provides Coloradans with facts and data-driven analysis to help make informed decisions. Yet three days after the Jan. 6 riot, CSI’s founder shared a debunked election fraud conspiracy video with insurrectionist attorney John Eastman and set a meeting to discuss it further.

On Jan. 9, 2021, banking magnate Earl Wright forwarded the conspiracy video to insurrectionist attorney John Eastman, whom, despite helping President Trump incite a mob of supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, was still employed as CU Boulder’s Benson Center Visiting Professor of Conservative Thought. 

. . . [indicted co-conspirator in the GA RICO case] John Eastman’s response to Wright, which perpetuated the conspiracy, was first reported by the Salt Lake Tribune’s Bryan Schott. 

“Guys,

I have met with Patrick. There is huge relevance to this, and I have actually had very high-level meetings about it. We should talk more about it when I’m in Boulder next week, and also about how to respond to Dan Jacobson’s scurrilous letter just sent on behalf of the Benson Center, falsely accusing me of making allegations for which I had no evidence when I had already advised him that I had documented evidence for every statement I have made through this whole intense process.

John”. 

. . . The video was titled “Hillary, Bribes and election steeling [sic] – Patrick M Byrne.” The video has since been removed, but tech-CEO-turned-election-conspiracist Patrick Byrne has repeatedly claimed, including in several video interviews, that the 2020 election was stolen by the “Deep State” that he first interacted with while bribing Hillary Clinton with $18 million on behalf of the FBI.
                         * * *

Is it pure coincidence that someone within the Kennedy org. formed a PAC "COMMON SENSE"?
https://www.commonsensekennedy.com

Does the fact that Kennedy is comfortable within this milieu indicate  he too questions the validity of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? If not, he should distance himself and reject their contributions.  If so, shouldn't he be transparent? Would that impact their financial support? Would his numbers continue to rise without that financial support?

Edited November 6, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[James DiEugenio]

As anyone can see, it is not Ben and me making this about politics and the campaign.

We have tried to keep this on the track of RFK and his relationship to the two cases, the death of his father and uncle. And the JFK Act and classified files. And how that figures into the attacks on him.

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As anyone can see, it is not Ben and me making this about politics and the campaign.

We have tried to keep this on the track of RFK and his relationship to the two cases, the death of his father and uncle. And the JFK Act and classified files. And how that figures into the attacks on him.

 

 

 

Amen. I think the EF-JFKA can afford a single thread on the RFK2 campaign, and his stance on on the JFK Records, and the possible (probable?) Op Mock ops being done against RFK2. 

As to RFK2's other positions on issues, or the financial backing of RFK2, or of other candidates, I say nothing---except I am sure all are backed by big money and there are squalid entanglements in all three families. 

So it goes. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

But, respectfully, how can one distinguish what should and shouldn't be scrutinized on a thread related a political candidate for the 2024 presidential election? I'm not criticizing Kennedy; I'm concerned about certain among his primary financial backers.

 

Leslie,

The reason I wrote specifically to you, giving you the rules for this thread, is because you were writing political anti-RFK things. Things that I didn't know were true or not.

As I said then, it is okay to write something about RFK2's politics if it is demonstrably true. So if you say that RFK got a donation from some group, and if it can be shown to be a fact, then it is acceptable for you to post it.

What you cannot do is draw a conclusion from what you posted. You can't say, for example, that RFK is (or may be) sympathetic to the views of those donors. You can't even say something like, can a person who accepts donations from those groups be trusted.

Just state the facts and make no commentary. That is acceptable. Though it may be treated as off topic. (I will let each individual reader decide that.)

 

[Leslie Sharp]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Leslie,

The reason I wrote specifically to you, giving you the rules for this thread, is because you were writing political anti-RFK things. Things that I didn't know were true or not.

As I said then, it is okay to write something about RFK2's politics if it is demonstrably true. So if you say that RFK got a donation from some group, and if it can be shown to be a fact, then it is acceptable for you to post it.

What you cannot do is draw a conclusion from what you posted. You can't say, for example, that RFK is (or may be) sympathetic to the views of those donors. You can't even say something like, can a person who accepts donations from those groups be trusted.

Just state the facts and make no commentary. That is acceptable. Though it may be treated as off topic. (I will let each individual reader decide that.)

 

Sandy, thanks for the additional clarification and I'll remain mindful of those stipulations. As indicated, I'm not accusing RFK Jr. of denying the 2020 election; I'm pointing to the fact that at least one of his significant donors continues to advance the disinformation, and was in fact an active participant in the December 18 Oval Office meeting during which it was proposed that the military seize control of election machines.  He, Patrick Byrne, also spoke at the January 5 pre-Jan 6 rally at which he stated things would get very interesting the following day; he also funded the failed Ninja Arizona audit, hosted strategy retreats for those who continued to promote unsubstantiated claims the election was rigged, and according to findings by the January 6 Committee, he provided jet service to several Proud Boys to rally in support of the failed candidate, Donald Trump in the days after the election.  

July 18, 2021 photo of RFK Jr. with General Mike Flynn — present at the December 19, 2020 Oval Office meeting, and Roger Stone — godfather of "Stop the Steal"  — speaks for itself. 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[W. Niederhut]

5 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Sandy, thanks for the additional clarification and I'll remain mindful of those stipulations. As indicated, I'm not accusing RFK Jr. of denying the 2020 election; I'm pointing to the fact that at least one of his significant donors continues to advance the disinformation, and was in fact an active participant in the December 18 Oval Office meeting during which it was proposed that the military seize control of election machines.  

 

         Indeed, Leslie, and it is also a fact that RFK, Jr. has assiduously avoided criticizing Donald Trump-- the sociopath who not only perpetrated the Big Lie that the 2020 U.S. election was stolen, but conspired to organize slates of False Electors in several swing states, and incited a violent mob to obstruct the Congressional certification of Biden's election on January 6th.   Those Trump crimes against American democracy are serious and unprecedented.

        No meritorious candidate for public office in the U.S.-- including RFK, Jr.-- should deny or remain silent about Trump's historic crimes.  Our democracy and Constitution are betrayed by such silence.

        And, shockingly, a high percentage of Trump's fans today still believe his Big Lie about the 2020 election, and also believe that violence against the U.S. government is justified.  It's a proto-fascist American crisis.

        Coincidentally, the biggest RFK, Jr. booster on this forum is a guy who has repeatedly denied that Trump engaged in a seditious conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, while calling Trump's violent J6 mob attack on Congress a "scrum."

[Paul Rigby]

<snip> Anti-Politician Video </snip>

 

[James DiEugenio]

On 11/6/2023 at 11:48 AM, James DiEugenio said:

As anyone can see, it is not Ben and me making this about politics and the campaign.

We have tried to keep this on the track of RFK and his relationship to the two cases, the death of his father and uncle. And the JFK Act and classified files. And how that figures into the attacks on him.

 

 

 

I repeat what I just wrote.

Its almost like some people do not want to have anything about RFK Jr, the JFK files, and the assassinations of the sixties tied in at all to the campaign, so they purposefully  make this political and hot historical.  Even after a specific warning not to do it.

Edited November 8, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I repeat what I just wrote.

Its almost like some people want to have anything about RFK Jr, the JFK files, and the assassinations of the sixties tied in at all to the campaign so they purposefully  makes this political and hot historical.  Even after a specific warning about that.

 

If somebody reports an anti-politician comment, I will remove it and issue a warning or penalty to the author.

If the comment is demonstrably true and no negative commentary is made, I may allow it to remain at my discretion.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Note to all:

1. We will survive a thread on the RFK2 campaign. 

2. Despite what you read, no matter who wins the 2024 election, it will not be TEOTWAWKI. 

3. But...we pretty know what will happen to the JFK Records, unless RFK2 wins. 

[Leslie Sharp]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I repeat what I just wrote.

Its almost like some people do not want to have anything about RFK Jr, the JFK files, and the assassinations of the sixties tied in at all to the campaign, so they purposefully  make this political and hot historical.  Even after a specific warning not to do it.

Several questions:

When did RFK Jr. first lend the influence of the Kennedy name and megaphone to demands for the release of the JFK files?

Has he been an active, effective spokesperson for the JFK Records Act since its passing?

How is this history not directly tied to the politics of his presidential candidacy? 

Has 'the community' over-compartmentalized the assassinations of the sixties, failing to acknowledge how they reverberate in every election cycle and most apparent in 2016?  

Is release of the remaining JFK Files — critical to an accurate historical record — a prudent single-issue vote in this perilous political climate?

Would voters change their choice of president/administrations if further and presumably definitive facts behind the assassinations are made public?   

Would the CIA be dissolved? Would Homeland Security be dissolved?

Are the courageous and tenacious  Records Act attorneys developing a more convincing argument to be heard eventually by the Supreme Court?

and I'll venture a bit further:
Did Trump exploit 'the community' in 2016? Did Biden promise the release of the remaining files and then renege? 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Leslie Sharp