Could an Outsider in the Oval Office Open Up the JFK Records?

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

 

 Ben- Jim D asserts right in his post that all the IRS docs that are being withheld are actually being withheld for nefarious purposes rather than the purposes the IRS mandates by law. He does so without any evidence whatsoever. That's conspiracy talk. None of what I've conveyed here is the least bit controversial.

Jim D's comments are a lot broader than that. 

Bur even if Jim D's comments were limited to IRS docs, we we do not know why those docs are being withheld. The financial privacy rights might be a convenient explanation. 

It never hurts to frame comments in the most collegial way possible. We will not influence the national election from within the EF-JFKA. 

Be cordial to MAGA people, GOP'ers, independents, D-Partiers, lefties, lone-nutters, CT'ers. 

[Michael Griffith]

No, I am confident that RFK Jr. would not tolerate any foot-dragging or excuses from the CIA and the FBI. 

I am supporting Bobby for president mainly because he meets all of my "must-have criteria" and because he's the only candidate in the race who can start to heal the partisan strife that is tearing apart our country. His determination to release all the assassination records is far down on my list of reasons for supporting him, but it is there.

BTW, two weeks ago I got to meet Nicole Shanahan at a campaign event in Virginia Beach. I even got to shake her hand and a have pic taken with her. She is an awesome, intelligent, and wonderful person. She'd make a great VP.

Why I Support Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for President

What Conservatives and Liberals Would Each Get with RFK Jr. in the White House (HTML version if PDF will not open)

 

Edited June 9 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

      Since Ben Cole's multiple, redundant RFK, Jr. fluffing threads-- and commentaries promoting RFK, Jr.'s Timothy Mellon-funded stalking horse candidacy-- are, apparently, being allowed on the JFKA board, let's talk about the subject more contextually, for a change.  No censorship, please.

      Typically, when anyone tries to introduce context to these RFK, Jr. promotional threads, they are immediately removed from the JFKA board.

      And accurate contextual comments have even been deleted from these RFK, Jr. threads by the mods.

      Herewith...

      Michael Griffith has described RFK, Jr. (above) as someone who can overcome the "partisan strife that is tearing apart our country."

      What does that mean, precisely?  How does Griffith imagine reconciling rational democracy with the Trump cult's assault on democracy?

      Does it refer to RFK, Jr. assiduously avoiding any criticism of Donald Trump's historic crimes?

      His bogus claim that Trump's J6 Capitol attackers have been denied their Constitutional rights?

      RFK, Jr. lamenting the takedown of Jim Crow era Confederate statues prized by white supremacists in the Trump cult?

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr. offered praise for members of the Confederacy (msnbc.com)

      James DiEugenio is a knowledgeable American historian.

      Does JD agree with RFK, Jr.'s regrets about the modern movement to replace Jim Crow era "Lost Cause" mythology with true history?

      I doubt it.  Columbia University historian Eric Foner has written very cogently about these Jim Crow era Confederate statues.

      RFK went out on a political limb to get Martin Luther King out of prison back in the day.  He knew the Dixiecrats would be angry.

      RFK, Jr. is doing the opposite.  He's pandering to white supremacists in the Trump cult.

      

Edited June 9 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Brancato]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Since Ben Cole's multiple, redundant RFK, Jr. fluffing threads-- and commentaries promoting RFK, Jr.'s Timothy Mellon-funded stalking horse candidacy-- are, apparently, being allowed on the JFKA board, let's talk about the subject more contextually, for a change.  No censorship, please.

      Typically, when anyone tries to introduce context to these RFK, Jr. promotional threads, they are immediately removed from the JFKA board.

      And accurate contextual comments have even been deleted from these RFK, Jr. threads by the mods.

      Herewith...

      Michael Griffith has described RFK, Jr. (above) as someone who can overcome the "partisan strife that is tearing apart our country."

      What does that mean, precisely?  How does Griffith imagine reconciling rational democracy with the Trump cult's assault on democracy?

      Does it refer to RFK, Jr. assiduously avoiding any criticism of Donald Trump's historic crimes?

      His bogus claim that Trump's J6 Capitol attackers have been denied their Constitutional rights?

      RFK, Jr. lamenting the takedown of Jim Crow era Confederate statues prized by white supremacists in the Trump cult?

      James DiEugenio is a knowledgeable American historian.

      Does JD agree with RFK, Jr.'s regrets about the modern movement to replace Jim Crow era "Lost Cause" mythology with true history?

      I doubt it.  Columbia University historian Eric Foner has written very cogently about these Jim Crow era Confederate statues.

      

Too bad you are so prejudiced. Your post is full of media slant. You simply don’t know who RFK Jr is, or Nicole Shanahan, because you fall for the propagandistic hit pieces. It’s that funding you should be concerned about. He is no stalking horse. You’ve attacked Ben at every opportunity, including all the way through Mr. Gordon’s now removed thread looking at the moderators. You’ve called him MAGA, and you honestly believe you’re doing us all a big favor by revealing his true motives. It’s your motives I wonder about, and why no one is coming after you for your ‘dancing Israelis’ theory of 9/11. Who put you on a pedestal? 

[Matthew Koch]

Just now, Paul Brancato said:

Too bad you are so prejudiced. Your post is full of media slant. You simply don’t know who RFK Jr is, or Nicole Shanahan, because you fall for the propagandistic hit pieces. It’s that funding you should be concerned about. He is no stalking horse. You’ve attacked Ben at every opportunity, including all the way through Mr. Gordon’s now removed thread looking at the moderators. You’ve called him MAGA, and you honestly believe you’re doing us all a big favor by revealing his true motives. It’s your motives I wonder about, and why no one is coming after you for your ‘dancing Israelis’ theory of 9/11. Who put you on a pedestal? 

Bump!

[Paul Brancato]

I don’t agree with Jim D on everything, but he has devoted decades to seeking truth and exposing lies. And all he gets here is flack from the very people that should have a bit of respect. Why is that? 
my opinion about moderators here, one I didn’t share while that thread was up and running because I was too busy trying to understand all the posts and arguments, is that it should just be uncensored. Why? Because I don’t trust anyone to be in charge of what ok to say and what isn’t ok. I’d prefer a free for all, damned the consequences, because after reading the posts on that thread it felt like we already had one. Plenty of disrespect to go around from the people who like to point fingers at others. Take the motes out of your own eyes first. 

[W. Niederhut]

24 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Too bad you are so prejudiced. Your post is full of media slant. You simply don’t know who RFK Jr is, or Nicole Shanahan, because you fall for the propagandistic hit pieces. It’s that funding you should be concerned about. He is no stalking horse. You’ve attacked Ben at every opportunity, including all the way through Mr. Gordon’s now removed thread looking at the moderators. You’ve called him MAGA, and you honestly believe you’re doing us all a big favor by revealing his true motives. It’s your motives I wonder about, and why no one is coming after you for your ‘dancing Israelis’ theory of 9/11. Who put you on a pedestal? 

Geez, Paul, what a ludicrous ad hominem post-- unworthy of you, really.

Have you dodged the evidence of right wing MAGA billionaire Timothy Mellon's multi-million dollar donations to RFK, Jr.'s stalkng horse campaign?

As for your nonsensical claim that I get my concepts from "propaganda hit pieces," I was a Magna Cum Laude American Studies major at Brown University before attending Harvard Medical School back in the day.

I usually cite the scholarly sources for my arguments.

And my EF commentaries are informed by a lifelong study of history and science, not partisan pundits.

Incidentally, the FBI arrests and 70 day incarcerations of the five "Dancing Israeli" Mossad agents apprehended near Giants Stadium on 9/11 isn't "my story."  It's a documented fact, confirmed by FBI files obtained through an FOIA law suit.

The five Israelis were arrested after witnesses in New Jersey saw them filming and celebrating the explosive demolitions of the WTC Twin Towers.

Those photos can be seen in the FBI files.

[Matt Cloud]

On 6/7/2024 at 9:45 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Legal Scholars and other knowledgeable parties---

I admit to being overwhelmed both by the verbiage of the Biden Administration in not complying with the JFK Records Act, and with the earnest explanations of whether what Biden is doing is legal, and if not legal will withstand legal challenges anyway. 

We have some legal scholars in the house, such as Andrew Iler, Mark Adamczyk, Lawrence Schnapf and Bill Simpich, and also some observers who appear to have studied the issue, such as Roger Odisio and Matt Cloud. 

So I want to fast-forward to an imaginary RFK2 presidency. I have lost hope for the present. 

If RFK2 ordered, without the slightest equivocation, the unconditional release of all JFK Records, could RFK2 still be flummoxed by a recalcitrant CIA or other intel-state actors? 

 

The best way to get the documents released, and insure that all documents are included, and that interested agencies have not played games with respect to concealing them or fighting to keep them concealed, and to avoid impeachment, is to request as president to be shown the documents whilst still classified, get possession of them, then "steal" the documents, then force litigation that will rule in favor of the president having been authorized to in fact lawfully have the documents, then release them.  

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t agree with Jim D on everything, but he has devoted decades to seeking truth and exposing lies. And all he gets here is flack from the very people that should have a bit of respect. Why is that? 
my opinion about moderators here, one I didn’t share while that thread was up and running because I was too busy trying to understand all the posts and arguments, is that it should just be uncensored. Why? Because I don’t trust anyone to be in charge of what ok to say and what isn’t ok. I’d prefer a free for all, damned the consequences, because after reading the posts on that thread it felt like we already had one. Plenty of disrespect to go around from the people who like to point fingers at others. Take the motes out of your own eyes first. 

You have hit the right point, Paul.

I didn't get around to offering an opinion about what should be done either.  But a few simple propositions seem be clear.

The mods' job should be simplified. No more deciding on the content we are allowed to see.  For one thing, that means stop removing threads and sending them elsewhere simply on the grounds they are relevant there. They invariably die there.  In terms of EF, that is censorship. I, too, do not trust anyone, including you and me, with such power.

If this place is to be useful freedom to express all kinds of views should be maximized. 

Stop the secrecy about decisions that are made.  Mods must announce them to the group and be prepared to defend them if asked.

The new mods should mainly be concerned with helping this place run smoothly.  That probably means contending with disruptive behavior should it appear. Which in my almost two years as a member, and about 10 years lurking, I haven't seen much of.

Btw, are there new mods?  If so can we have their names?

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t agree with Jim D on everything, but he has devoted decades to seeking truth and exposing lies. And all he gets here is flack from the very people that should have a bit of respect. Why is that? 
my opinion about moderators here, one I didn’t share while that thread was up and running because I was too busy trying to understand all the posts and arguments, is that it should just be uncensored. Why? Because I don’t trust anyone to be in charge of what ok to say and what isn’t ok. I’d prefer a free for all, damned the consequences, because after reading the posts on that thread it felt like we already had one. Plenty of disrespect to go around from the people who like to point fingers at others. Take the motes out of your own eyes first. 

Paul,

     I was a fan of James DiEugenio's scholarly work-- and a donor to his excellent K&K website-- long before he achieved notoriety through his film with Oliver Stone.

     And Jim and I have occasionally discussed the history of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Jim Crow era, including Professor Eric Foner's work.

     That is why I seriously doubt that Jim agrees with RFK, Jr.'s recent public comments decrying the removal of Jim Crow era Confederate statues.

     Unlike RFK-- who risked alienating Dixiecrats by freeing Martin Luther King from prison-- RFK, Jr. appears to be pandering to white supremacists.

     I mentioned this Confederate statue issue in the context of Michael Griffith's claim that RFK, Jr. can "heal the partisan strife that is tearing this country apart."  

     Do we "heal partisan strife" by denying that slavery, racism, and Trump's J6 attack on Congress ever happened?

     My psychiatric opinion is that the first stage of "healing" requires overcoming denial-- not reinforcing it.

     

Edited June 9 by W. Niederhut

[Matthew Koch]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t agree with Jim D on everything, but he has devoted decades to seeking truth and exposing lies. And all he gets here is flack from the very people that should have a bit of respect. Why is that? 
my opinion about moderators here, one I didn’t share while that thread was up and running because I was too busy trying to understand all the posts and arguments, is that it should just be uncensored. Why? Because I don’t trust anyone to be in charge of what ok to say and what isn’t ok. I’d prefer a free for all, damned the consequences, because after reading the posts on that thread it felt like we already had one. Plenty of disrespect to go around from the people who like to point fingers at others. Take the motes out of your own eyes first. 

I like your uncensored idea but obviously posts need to conform to the rules.

I would like to see us come together as JFKA researchers and put partisan politics aside. But, we have to be in agreement as a community to make this site more about ''research'' and less about blaming your political enemies.

What I think is a good idea (But, I know probably won't get implemented) Is to have mods identify problematic words or sentences and when they don't conform to forum. (Say something like: Take this out: JFK was a Robot) Have the person reword the word or sentence to comply with forum rules. (and if it's off topic, put the comment in the right topic) I think that when people are suspended or have their writings (Which may have taken some time to compose) deleted. That creates tension and hurt feeling that gets put into other posts and starts breaking down the forum and gets it off track. 

We all have access to FB, Instagram, Twitter, Etc. this is a debate and research forum, NOT a watercooler. IMHO and as a long time viewer of this site ('09 on) it offends me when people can't cite material or add links and or worse sharing classic rock songs and are just sharing their opinions which isn't a debate that's clutter. 

Now, while I do agree with your opening premise, to be fair, Jim does put people on ignore to punish them or will say taunting things about people on his ignore list when their posts get mentioned.. So, while it's 3/4 in one direction, it does get reciprocated.

Al, I want is for the forum to be fair but currently it isn't but that is a community wide problem not just a MOD issue. And until people are going to flag posts and get rewarded by having them taken down or moved, I see little changing on the forum. 

But basically this should be the rule of thumb is the topic (JFK's Admin, the Assassination, evidence, documents, suspects, and organizations that could be involved) if it is one of those topics it belongs on the forum..

IF, the premise is political (Trump, Republicans, Conservatives, RFK Jr. Biden, Democrats, Capitalism) probably doesn't belong on the forum and the mods can move it if it should be discussed on Face Book or on the MLK RFK Deep state parts of the site.

The water coolers should be deleted and forum members should create their own JFK Forum Face Book page an discuss opinions because un cited opinions and theories are ruining the prior research that serious people did here for the past 20yrs and cluttering the site. 

 

Edited June 9 by Matthew Koch

[James DiEugenio]

I thought the original question was could RFK Jr. declassify everything that is still being withheld by himself if elected.

It was and is a legitimate question and I offered my informed opinion.

I did not think it could happen unless there was a court hearing and the committee in congress who passed the law joined in.

That is what I said. And that is what I think. Based only on what I know about the law.  Which is not as much as Andrew knows but as much as or more than most others here.

It was Matt who jumped on and made the issue political.  

Ask him why he did it.  

Edited June 9 by James DiEugenio

[Matt Allison]

49 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

The water coolers should be deleted

LOL

No one makes you look at the Coolers Forum. It is a forum that is almost entirely posts about factual news items of that day.

Anyone that finds factual news triggering to their political slant should probably steer clear.

40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

It was Matt who jumped on and made the issue political.  

Ask him why he did it.  

The title of this thread starts with the words "If RFK Jr. is elected", so I'm hardly the person that made this thread political.

I'm not interested in being berated about telling the truth about how RFK Jr is not going to be elected POTUS, or how the JFK files issue has clearly been weaponized for political purposes on this board. But if I am, my response will be factual, and if people have a problem with that, they should try presenting facts and evidence, not conspiracy theories, to bolster their opinion.

[James DiEugenio]

That is the only way that RFK Jr could try to declassify the remaining documents.

And that is what the question was about, declassifying the rest of the documents.

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

LOL

No one makes you look at the Coolers Forum. It is a forum that is almost entirely posts about factual news items of that day.

Anyone that finds factual news triggering to their political slant should probably steer clear.

The title of this thread starts with the words "If RFK Jr. is elected", so I'm hardly the person that made this thread political.

I'm not interested in being berated about telling the truth about how RFK Jr is not going to be elected POTUS, or how the JFK files issue has clearly been weaponized for political purposes on this board. But if I am, my response will be factual, and if people have a problem with that, they should try presenting facts and evidence, not conspiracy theories, to bolster their opinion.

Oh, I don't look at the Water Coolers 

Operation Mocking Bird Never stopped, and now politically biased JFK researchers cite it and Government Warren Commission like hearings.. my how times have changed. 

The point I was making that you are now helping me with Matt.. is, that the people from the "Water Coolers" are 90% of the people who break down threads based on politics. That is now happening in this thread (a thread that, I don't think should be on the main page of the forum because it's political and is only loosely connected to JFKA research) and it is happening because you guys don't like Ben's Politics and you feel a need to stick up for and defend the administration you voted for.. I get it. But it is unprofessional, lacks grace and decorum and your "LOL" is adding to that spirit of lack of grace, decorum, and unprofessional mocking behavior that has become systemic and problematic on the forum. The following projecting ad hom sentence directed toward me is also what I'm talking about.. it's unnecessarily rude. (I understand I too am guilty of this behavior but I'm trying to fix things you are not, you like them the way they are you said so in James post) 

Now Matt.. I understand that people don't comment on your twitter or pay attention to you there and so you get your social interaction on the Watercooler but why don't you just have William and Ron get a twitter.. Kirk and Doug already have one, problem solved. You guys could even say your rude stuff to me there and guess what I wouldn't complain here on the forum I would just give you my uncensored feed back  

Lib·er·al

/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

 

adjective

 

1. 1. 

   willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

   2. 
2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

   noun

 

1. 1. 

   a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.

   "she dissented from the decision, joined by the court's liberals"

    
2. 2. 

   a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

    

    

   So Matt,

   while I am very right wing, I am more liberal than you and the Watercooler crew and can accept subjective opinions that I don't agree with.

   Forexample this thread is called "IF" RFK2 elected could JFK Records act be saved"  well anyone's opinion should be valid because it's formed in an open ended way that if people weren't autistic they could use normal manners of conversation to discuss this shot in the dark and rather boring theoretical question. 

    

   Could is a very important word because there are people on this thread and on this forum that could exercise those normal means of dialogue to.. maybe get information they didn't know prior to the discussion. But as we have seen there are people that could not and they have a pattern of serial and borderline compulsive need to not allow that to happen on a literal debate forum. 

    

   The fact that people feel that they can derail threads and a mod won't chastise them for derailing the tread was the root of the problem all along. And we know what that root is, it's political biases that really should NOT be happening in moderation because the site is supposed to be about research not "factual news" 

    

    

   LOL "Factual News" 

   LMAO even.. 

    

    

Edited June 9 by Matthew Koch