Senator says no way it wasn’t a conspiracy.

[Ron Bulman]

Ron Johnson, Mike Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, all peas in a pod? 

[Benjamin Cole]

25 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ron Johnson, Mike Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, all peas in a pod? 

Interesting. What are Mike Johnson's views on the JFKA, if any? 

(I am asking about Mike Johnson's views, as Speaker of the House and thus a prominent public office holder, on the JFKA. I am not asking for more tired partisan posturing. We all get it, there are Donks and 'Phants.)

Edited December 22, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Ron Bulman]

I'll get back.  Going to watch White Christmas with the wife at the moment.  

 

[James DiEugenio]

William, 

That is pure speculation on your part.

The guy quoted two good books as his reasons for thinking what he does.

Carlson says he had a source within the CIA.

Robert Kennedy Jr. came to his conclusions through the efforts of Paul Schrade.

Al Gore cam to his conclusion thorough the aid of Bud Fensterwald.

I don't know how Putin came to his.

The more this message gets out there the better. And I think its partly due to the work of Landis, Rob Reiner, and Paramount Plus which is now carrying both What the Doctors Saw and JFK Revisited.   Plus Libby Handros, who is on Black Op Radio tonight about her documentary Four Died Trying.  Which has gotten surprisingly  little notice on this forum.

 

[W. Niederhut]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

William, 

That is pure speculation on your part.

The guy quoted two good books as his reasons for thinking what he does.

Carlson says he had a source within the CIA.

Robert Kennedy Jr. came to his conclusions through the efforts of Paul Schrade.

Al Gore cam to his conclusion thorough the aid of Bud Fensterwald.

I don't know how Putin came to his.

The more this message gets out there the better. And I think its partly due to the work of Landis, Rob Reiner, and Paramount Plus which is now carrying both What the Doctors Saw and JFK Revisited.   Plus Libby Handros, who is on Black Op Radio tonight about her documentary Four Died Trying.  Which has gotten surprisingly  little notice on this forum.

 

Jim,

    Yes, speculation.  I asked a question-- Why RoJo?--and mentioned a hypothesis about Trump and the MAGA movement's history (since 2017) of attacking the "Deep State," and depicting Trump as an erstwhile victim of the Deep State.

     The unspoken implication is, "The Deep State destroyed JFK, and they're trying to destroy Trump, too."

     My hypothesis may be wrong, but we know that RoJo has actively colluded in Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

     RoJo has also been accused of working for the Kremlin.

     But, in any case, having a U.S. Senator accuse the CIA of killing JFK is a gift-- even if the Senator is RoJo.

     As for Tucker and his CIA source, where were they in 2017 and 2018 when Trump blocked the release of the JFK records?

     At the time, Tucker and his Fox News associates were virtual White House staffers.

     Better late than never, but why did Tucker wait until 2023 to suddenly announce that the CIA killed JFK?

Edited December 22, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Amen. 

Are we really going to review the (perceived) partisan virtues and supposed ulterior motives of every high level public figure who says they have sound reasons to doubt the official narratives of the JFKA?

Partisan coprophagic juvenalia does not add to the EF-JFKA. 

 

Get off it Ben! Do you ever take responsibility? If, as usual you come with bad sources  you haven't researched. Don't be surprised if we attack them! It's that simple! 

Then you hijack your own thread and make it into pro Israeli thread. You can't even keep a train of thought, and we're supposed to indulge you?

This is relevant. Your stand on the Israeli War isn't. 

Your star witness is part of the fake election scam! That's relevant!---We're impeaching your witness!

To inject some humor,  the funniest thing is when he's confronted by reporters about his staff trying to deliver an illegitimate, fake slate of electors to Pence on 1/6.. He acts like he's preoccupied talking over his cell phone,(1:48) when a reporter tells him his cell phone  screen is  out in view to the reporter. Thus, Johnson is faking talking to the wrong side of the phone!

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Get off it Ben! Do you ever take responsibility? If, as usual you come with bad sources  you haven't researched. Don't be surprised if we attack them! It's that simple! 

Then you hijack your own thread and make it into pro Israeli thread. You can't even keep a train of thought, and we're supposed to indulge you?

This is relevant. Your stand on the Israeli War isn't. 

Your star witness is part of the fake election scam! That's relevant!---We're impeaching your witness!

To inject some humor,  the funniest thing is when he's confronted by reporters about his staff trying to deliver an illegitimate, fake slate of electors to Pence on 1/6.. He acts like he's preoccupied talking over his cell phone,(1:48) when a reporter tells him his cell phone  screen is  out in view to the reporter. Thus, Johnson is faking talking to the wrong side of the phone!

 

 

You have the final say. 

I regret the conversation got into Israel. 

[James DiEugenio]

Kirk's rant is  not accurate, (nothing new, remember Brazil?).  But I have to look at his stuff when someone else posts it.

It was the Gallagher brothers who first started attacking the thread on political grounds--MAGA, the insurrection. Which had nothing to do with why Cory--Cory, not Ben-- posted it in the first place. 

This forced Ben to defend himself on those political grounds.

They have been after Ben on political grounds because of his defense of RFK Jr.  And this is a continuation of that political attack.

But recall, Ben was not even the guy who started the thread.

Cory  was and he and Ben were just trying to point out that someone in Washington in high office indicated he was in favor of a conspiracy verdict in the JFK case. 

So when Kirk says "Get off it!" I wish the Gallagher brothers would get off it.  They see themselves as policemen as to what is politically correct on the JFK case. Here they jump out of their car and deliver a pummeling.

It would be one thing if they knew the case exceedingly well and could exercise this presumed authority with some justification.

They don't. So they resort to these kinds of tactics.

I mean please.

 

 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kirk's rant is  not accurate, (nothing new, remember Brazil?).  But I have to look at his stuff when someone else posts it.

It was the Gallagher brothers who first started attacking the thread on political grounds--MAGA, the insurrection.

Apparently Mr. DiEugenio doesn’t realize the insurrection is on-going.  Figures.  A few years back he didn’t know what a “news cycle” is.

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Which had nothing to do with why Cory--Cory, not Ben-- posted it in the first place. 

By Mr. DiEugenio’s decree, we cannot question the motives of politicians?

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This forced Ben to defend himself on those political grounds.

They have been after Ben on political grounds because of his defense of RFK Jr.  And this is a continuation of that political attack.

Factually incorrect.  I pointed out that the goal of Trump-Johnson-Carlson was to return Trump to power and fire all the career civil servants.  They’ll cite Allen Dulles as a rationale for turning the CIA into Trump’s personal intel service.

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But recall, Ben was not even the guy who started the thread.

Cory  was and he and Ben were just trying to point out that someone in Washington in high office indicated he was in favor of a conspiracy verdict in the JFK case. 

So when Kirk says "Get off it!" I wish the Gallagher brothers would get off it.

I wish Mr. DiEugenio had a better grasp of the political moment.

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 I’m   They see themselves as policemen as to what is politically correct on the JFK case.

Projection.

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Here they jump out of their car and deliver a pummeling.

Criticism of MAGA politicians — it’s over Mr. DiEugenio’s head?

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It would be one thing if they knew the case exceedingly well and could exercise this presumed authority with some justification.

Hilarious coming from a guy who wrote 6 hours of JFKA documentary without mentioning the Actual Physical Evidence once.

What does CE399 have to do with the murder of JFK?

Nothing.  So why does Mr. DiEugenio fixate on it?

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

They don't. So they resort to these kinds of tactics.

I mean please.

JFK suffered two wounds of entrance in soft tissue, no exits, no bullets recovered.

How is it the biggest blow hard know-it-alls haven’t figured out 6.5mm FMJ rounds don’t leave such wounds?

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kirk's rant is  not accurate, (nothing new, remember Brazil?).  But I have to look at his stuff when someone else posts it.

It was the Gallagher brothers who first started attacking the thread on political grounds--MAGA, the insurrection. Which had nothing to do with why Cory--Cory, not Ben-- posted it in the first place. 

This forced Ben to defend himself on those political grounds.

They have been after Ben on political grounds because of his defense of RFK Jr.  And this is a continuation of that political attack.

But recall, Ben was not even the guy who started the thread.

Cory  was and he and Ben were just trying to point out that someone in Washington in high office indicated he was in favor of a conspiracy verdict in the JFK case. 

So when Kirk says "Get off it!" I wish the Gallagher brothers would get off it.  They see themselves as policemen as to what is politically correct on the JFK case. Here they jump out of their car and deliver a pummeling.

It would be one thing if they knew the case exceedingly well and could exercise this presumed authority with some justification.

They don't. So they resort to these kinds of tactics.

I mean please.

 

 

 

 

 

JD-

Thanks, we are are the same team, and we should both take a lesson from this: "Do not engage with fools in their folly." 

Some people force-feed every JFKA topic through their mono-colored partisan lens. 

I regret taking the bait. 

As the year ends, I think it time to recognize the contributions, made over decades, and always earnestly, by DiEugenio, Larry Hancock, Jeff Morley, John Newman, Tink Thompson, David Josephs, our own Gil Jesus, and others.

Sure, there are disagreements, hopefully conducted in a civil and collegial manner, on some topics. 

But I do not doubt for a second the earnest nature of all those mentioned. No one went into this for the money. 

Sadly, what a distinction from officialdom, the snuff job on the JFK Records Act, and those who defend that status quo. 

A big salute also to Larry Schnapf, and others on the legal team fighting government secrecy. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

 

[Cliff Varnell]

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kirk's rant is  not accurate, (nothing new, remember Brazil?).  But I have to look at his stuff when someone else posts it.

It was the Gallagher brothers who first started attacking the thread on political grounds--MAGA, the insurrection. Which had nothing to do with why Cory--Cory, not Ben-- posted it in the first place. 

This forced Ben to defend himself on those political grounds.

They have been after Ben on political grounds because of his defense of RFK Jr.  And this is a continuation of that political attack.

But recall, Ben was not even the guy who started the thread.

Cory  was and he and Ben were just trying to point out that someone in Washington in high office indicated he was in favor of a conspiracy verdict in the JFK case. 

So when Kirk says "Get off it!" I wish the Gallagher brothers would get off it.  They see themselves as policemen as to what is politically correct on the JFK case. Here they jump out of their car and deliver a pummeling.

It would be one thing if they knew the case exceedingly well and could exercise this presumed authority with some justification.

They don't. So they resort to these kinds of tactics.

I mean please.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's recap!  Jim, unlike you, we aren't eager to grovel for JFKAC endorsements. We are much more selective than you, so we merely vetted your endorsement.

 

What don't you understand? We've given you hard evidence that your wonder boy's staff was trying to deliver an illegitimate, fake slate of electors to Pence on 1/6. He doesn't deny it!

What's "not accurate" about that?

As usual the headlines are wasted on Jim. Some of us would call such a person a"traitor" Jim. Do you understand now?

 

But all I get from you  about anythings that's currently relevant is a lot of fence sitting so as not to turn off anybody.   Because after all we'll accept any jerk off endorsement we can, right Jim?

 

I assume this comes from living in a conspiracy bubble, so there's no curiosity about current events or anything else going on in the world?

 

And It's ended up like it always does. You make a lot of irresponsible statements or endorsements, we end up calling you on them. 

You never engage directly on points, you punt every time. When confronted with facts, You always end up screaming foul like you're some  victim. 

But more importantly, you're above listening, so you never learn. It looks like you could learn from reading what W. wrote in his thread.

 

Jim:They have been after Ben on political grounds because of his defense of RFK Jr.  And this is a continuation of that political attack!

 

That's just kind of weenie statement I've come to expect. This has absolutely nothing to do with RK and everything to do with Ron Johnson. We're not obsessed with RK, like you.

 

Jim:Then the Gallagher Brothers had to start in with their political agenda about the political parties.

I mean geez give us all a break.  

IMO, they should not have been allowed to do this. 

 

Is this Jim asking Sandy to find him 11,720 votes!   heh heh       ( I think Trump even said "Give me a Break")

 

This from Mr. Free Speech  follower of Assange and Snowden?  You sound like a typical autocrat.

 

And Jim said this directly after Ben hijacked this thread to Israel. ( which Cliff was merely responding to) Yet in Jim's mind, we hijacked the thread by simply exposing Ron Johnson. That's the kind of personal judgement we're dealing with. He could convince himself of anything, and has many times.. 

 

 

 

*Incidentally, what's this Gallagher thing? What are our names? Should I squeal to Sandy, or are we supposed to make up a name for you?

 

 

 

heh heh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Ben for naming me in that roster of luminaries.

Funny, neither of the Gallghers was invited to speak at the Wecht Conference.

You and I did.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Incidentally, what's this Gallagher thing? 

Noel and Liam Gallagher of Oasis.  Jim’s a big early 90’s britpop fan.  I like Blur and Suede better.  Oasis vocals are too whiny.  This is their best performance, a Stones cover.