Then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo begged Trump to not release remaining CIA files on JFKA

[Gil Jesus]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

WN-

I have been threatened with suspension. Wishing to avoid antipathies, I will refrain from responding to your comments going forward. 

When the topic is Trump, expect no less.  Yes, he's a polarizing figure but the hatred he draws from people seems to only have been since 2016. 

Here's a thought:  what if all this anti-Trump hatred is directly connected to his original promise to release the files ? Why is the power elite so scared of this guy ? Why do they want to keep him out of the White House ? Is it because the President has the final say on the release of the files ? 

"If they showed you what they showed me, you wouldn't release them either." -- Trump to Judge Napolitano.

He was convinced by his CIA Director Pompeo to not release the files. Apparently, since the attempt on his own life, he's had a change of heart.

This makes him even more dangerous to the deep state now. He won't be deferred this time.

My question is: What the hell is in those files that is so devastating to the country that they must never be seen by the public ?

I mean how bad could it be ? LBJ ? The Mafia ? The Russians ? Castro ? The Secret Service ? These are all theories that have been floated over the years. Do any of them sound like they'd destroy the country ?

Not to me.

The only reason to hide these files is that they implicate the CIA in the assassination.

Edited August 31 by Gil Jesus

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

When the topic is Trump, expect no less.  Yes, he's a polarizing figure but the hatred he draws from people seems to only have been since 2016. 

Here's a thought:  what if all this anti-Trump hatred is directly connected to his original promise to release the files ? Why is the power elite so scared of this guy ? Why do they want to keep him out of the White House ? Is it because the President has the final say on the release of the files ? 

"If they showed you what they showed me, you wouldn't release them either." -- Trump to Judge Napolitano.

He was convinced by his CIA Director Pompeo to not release the files. Apparently, since the attempt on his own life, he's had a change of heart.

This makes him even more dangerous to the deep state now. He won't be deferred this time.

My question is: What the hell is in those files that is so devastating to the country that they must never be seen by the public ?

I mean how bad could it be ? LBJ ? The Mafia ? The Russians ? Castro ? The Secret Service ? These are all theories that have been floated over the years. Do any of them sound like they'd destroy the country ?

Not to me.

The only reason to hide these files is that they implicate the CIA in the assassination.

I largely agree.

But possibly other elements within the intel-state were responsible.

It is possible Alpha 66 was involved, and they perped the JFKA. There were some crossover assets, such Veciana, who worked sequentially for CIA and then Army intel and were very angry at JFK.

Evidently uncontrollable assets. CIA washed their hands of Alpha 66, due their intractability. They had been trained in assassinations, btw, and tried to get Castro a few times.

Could Antonio Veciana, and others, be misdirecting with their CIA leads?

The national security state would still have to cover up the truth behind the JFKA, if it was an Army intel/Alpha 66  black op. 

Just a thought. Or maybe Alpha 66 knew LHO, and duped him into unwitting involvement in the JFKA. No higher ups involved. 

I think David Josephs and John Newman have been talking about Army ops. 

The JFKA as an Alpha 66 op that piggy-backed on the CIA-created LHO legend? 

Edited August 31 by Benjamin Cole

[Paul Bacon]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Yes, he's a polarizing figure but the hatred he draws from people seems to only have been since 2016.

Jesus, Gil!!  Many of us have hated him since the mid to late 70's.  He was a moron then and he's even worse now. 

And, regarding your statement earlier about voting based on policy, I used to think like that until I realized policy can change direction on a dime.  Now, my number one criterion for a candidate is character...

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

WN-

I have been threatened with suspension. Wishing to avoid antipathies, I will refrain from responding to your comments going forward. 

That's an ad hominem deflection, Ben.  This isn't about me.

Apparently, you don't want to answer my question about your Trump post.

Do let us know why you believe Trump was "deposed by the intel-state," if you are so inclined.

And leave the usual false, ad hominem slurs out of your response.

I'm all ears.

Edited August 31 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:30 AM, James DiEugenio said:

We now have two people on the record about this issue, Napolitano and RFK Jr.

And both of them are hearsay. But about these sources.

First off, Let's be clear,  Napolitano has had 3 sexual harassment charges brought against him, the first said he  sexually assaulted him in exchange for a lighter sentence in an arson case. Then one was a waiter in a restaurant in 2020, and the third a Fox employee that cost him his job at Fox. He's denied all the charges.

 

But even if we somehow give him the benefit of the doubt, my experience in following him in the little I've seen 

throughout his years on Fox. I saw him continually act surprised and sometimes expressed "disappointment" at Trump's newest extralegal forays. But at least from what I saw, he never castigated Trump. "Oh he just a bad boy", but he uses his contact with Trump to further his career, just like Carlson. 

He was always a legal expert "go to guy". But I would have liked to see him  in a forum of other legal experts to test what expertise he really had.

But as for Napolitano's credibility, all this is out the window if any of these sexual allegations are true!

 

Then RK, RK's the natural guy to want action. No one would forgive him  but honestly nothing new that could be revealed at this point is going to absolutely convince the public in any way that would merit seriously changing the status quo.

 

Disbanding the CIA in any meaningful way? Are you out of your mind? Like any major or minor power would do that! Throw out a bunch of people 60 years later who you have no grounds to say knew anything about it, and rearrange the deck chairs! This is what I mean by titanic hopes!

 

But even making the RK the face of this investigation. He's gone from 20% to 2%!, Bear worms/ severed whale heads.

Good Lord!

And I'm not even talking about him shopping himself to both Presidential candidates!

You're not at all concerned in the long term, but I am.

That's what I mean when I say you guys don't get it.
In politics, the messenger is the message. 

 

It also helps to know the rosters.

 

 

 

 

 

And for the Trump voters,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31 by Kirk Gallaway

[Jean Ceulemans]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

WN-

I have been threatened with suspension. Wishing to avoid antipathies, I will refrain from responding to your comments going forward. 

@W. Niederhut you were fishing (a number of times) for political reactions, not?

IMO you can not blame a man for answering the questions you asked yourself.

It seems that if there was de-railing, you encouraged it by diving in the pool and joining the party.

C´mon...

I just don´t feel this is fair towards @Benjamin Cole

[W. Niederhut]

11 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

@W. Niederhut you were fishing (a number of times) for political reactions, not?

IMO you can not blame a man for answering the questions you asked yourself.

It seems that if there was de-railing, you encouraged it by diving in the pool and joining the party.

C´mon...

I just don´t feel this is fair towards @Benjamin Cole

C'mon, Jean.  Pay attention, please.

Ben Cole stated (above) that he believes Trump was "deposed by the intel-state."

I simply asked him to explain why he believes that.

He has declined to answer my question.

And, incidentally, I haven't threatened Ben with anything.

He, apparently, thinks that both he and Trump are being treated unfairly.

 

Edited August 31 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

William:

That is really unfair and it shows both bias and lack of perspective on your part.

Because you and so many others here are so  anti Trump, you cannot see that the whole Russia Gate matter was in large part manufactured as a way for the Democrats to distract from the whole HIllary Clinton private server mess. I mean the Democrats financed the effort and Adam Schiff hid that fact.

HRC was directly involved as can be seen through Wikileaks, and you can also see exposes of the matter in more than one place like CJR and Matt Taibibi.  One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was to expose how the FBI and Biden suppressed this information.  I mean when you have Max Holland jumping on the Russia Gate freight train to link it to JFK, does that not tell you something?

Russia Gate was a hoax and the Dems paid for the Steele Dossier which was forensically worthless. And Schiff covered that up also.

[W. Niederhut]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

William:

That is really unfair and it shows both bias and lack of perspective on your part.

Because you and so many others here are so  anti Trump, you cannot see that the whole Russia Gate matter was in large part manufactured as a way for the Democrats to distract from the whole HIllary Clinton private server mess. I mean the Democrats financed the effort and Adam Schiff hid that fact.

HRC was directly involved as can be seen through Wikileaks, and you can also see exposes of the matter in more than one place like CJR and Matt Taibibi.  One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was to expose how the FBI and Biden suppressed this information.  I mean when you have Max Holland jumping on the Russia Gate freight train to link it to JFK, does that not tell you something?

Russia Gate was a hoax and the Dems paid for the Steele Dossier which was forensically worthless. And Schiff covered that up also.

Geez, Jim, you have always been on the wrong side of history about Trump and Russia.

We have discussed the facts in detail, ad nauseum-- but false MAGA narratives die slowly.

The Steele Dossier was never the basis for the belated FBI investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign's multiple contacts with Kremlin assets-- including Kilimnik and Veselnitskaya.

And we now know that Russian military intel hacked voter registration databases in multiple U.S. states in 2016.

Manafort committed perjury to deny his 2016 campaign collusion with Russian intelligence, knowing that Trump had floated him a pardon.

Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his December 2016 phone calls with Kisylak, to undermine U.S. sanctions against Putin for his interference in our 2016 election.

The Russia-gate scandal wasn't about the Steele Dossier.

It began, in earnest, in 2017, after Trump fired James Comey (and Andrew McCabe) in an attempt to obstruct the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn.

The GOP Senate later used their narrow majority to appoint Bill Barr as AG, and shut down, redact, and misrepresent the Mueller investigation.

Mueller never exonerated Trump, nor concluded that Trump did not "collude" with the Kremlin in 2016.

That is a false MAGA narrative.

His investigation was inconclusive, because it was stonewalled by Trump, Manafort, and Stone-- the latter two of whom were later pardoned by Trump for stonewalling the investigation.

[Jean Ceulemans]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

That's an ad hominem deflection, Ben.  This isn't about me.

Apparently, you don't want to answer my question about your Trump post.

Do let us know why you believe Trump was "deposed by the intel-state," if you are so inclined.

And leave the usual false, ad hominem slurs out of your response.

I'm all ears.

How is this ad hominem towards you?!?

[Benjamin Cole]

 "Or suspend you again for ongoing criticism of the moderators?"--Ron Bulman

Given the warning (made earlier in this thread), I will only post my views, and only comment on contributions made by non-moderators.

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 "Or suspend you again for ongoing criticism of the moderators?"--Ron Bulman

Given the warning (made earlier in this thread), I will only post my views, and only comment on contributions made by non-moderators.

 

       Just to clarify, there is a big difference between someone disagreeing with forum members, including moderators, while engaging in on-topic debates, and someone posting off-topic ad hominem slurs about a mod, or other forum members.

      Discussing topics, and disagreeing about topics, is what this forum is all about.

      Posting off-topic, ad hominem slurs about mods, or other forum members, is a violation of forum decorum.  That includes stalking behavior-- people who repeatedly post off-topic, ad hominem slurs out of spitefulness, or what-have-you.

Edited September 1 by W. Niederhut

[Ron Bulman]

22 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Why not?  Are moderators exempted from responding to the ongoing political diatribe in the thread?  Or should we just move the thread to political discussions like so many others you have started or disrupted?  Or suspend you again for ongoing criticism of the moderators?  

I did not threaten to suspend Ben, I asked him a question.  Repeated bashing of moderators falls under the preset forum definition of "Treating admin disrespectfully", an automatic 10 point suspension of one day's posting Privileges.  Which can be adjusted upwards for future offenses.  Not a threat, just a fact of the forums structure.  Mark has noted before, this is not a Democracy.  We all post at the pleasure of the site owner.  If he or Mark or Evan want me to retire they will let me know I feel sure. 

[James DiEugenio]

One of the best exposes you will see on the so called DNC hack.

 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

 

Here it is from the horse's mouth about HRC.  And BTW, its even worse than this.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html

 

This is largely behind a wall, but Aaron Mate was one of the best on this issue and you can see how he disagrees with William.  https://mondediplo.com/2019/05/02russiagate-end

Edited September 1 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

One of the best exposes you will see on the so called DNC hack.

 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

 

Here it is from the horse's mouth about HRC.  And BTW, its even worse than this.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html

 

This is largely behind a wall, but Aaron Mate was one of the best on this issue and you can see how he disagrees with William.  https://mondediplo.com/2019/05/02russiagate-end

JD--

In addition: 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russiagate-fiasco-taibbi-news-media-826246/

---30---

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-2.php

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-3.php

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-4.php

---30---

An informative episode for today was the presidency of Jimmy Carter, a former Navy captain, and a decent fellow. He was elevated and then dumped by elite media-national security state.

"In 1980, Lawrence Shoup noted that the national news media discovered and promoted Carter, and stated:

What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months.^[103]"

Carter, with his Navy background and general foreign-trade-military outlooks, was acceptable in DC in 1976---but suddenly, in 1980, not so.  

Carter (in the view of some) mishandled the Shah of Iran situation, and the seizing of hostages in the US embassy in Tehran, and accepting the Shah into US after the Shah was run out of Iran..

Meanwhile, the Reaganauts, neocons and national security state were hatching cynical and  illegal arms deals with the religious-extremist nutcases in Tehran to get US hostages out (Irangate). This is a long complicated story with too many moving parts and off-topic for EF-JFKA, so I will leave it at that. 

In the legacy media (then all powerful) Carter went from fair-haired boy to little stupid weakling, within the space of a year. I lived in DC at the time.

Forgotten today is CBS anchor Walter Cronkite "night after night on American television, would count down the agonizingly long and humiliating number of days of captivity for the American hostages in Iran until they were freed, 444 days later."

Imagine if today the US media wanted Biden out, and counted, day by day--"Day 221"--the holding of the US citizen hostages by Hamas--implying Biden was weak and should do something. 

Every op in 1980 was taken to show Carter was ineffective. Of course, Carter was mild-mannered, preacherly, and the hatchets knew exactly how to take advantage of that part of Carter's personality. 

The Boston Globe, a "liberal" newspaper, ran the op-ed headline, "Mush from the Wimp" (meaning Carter) and then claimed they did it accidentally.  

And in hindsight,  Carter probably should have shown more strength on Iran, and backed the Shah to the hilt. Hindsight is perfect, btw. See below. 

---30---

The day that changed the Middle East

Nov 5, 2566 BE — The story of how Iran went from a reliable pro-West ally to the center of fundamentalist Islamic terror begins with President Jimmy Carter.--The Guardian https://sundayguardianlive.com/world/the-day-that-changed-the-middle-east-2

 

---30---

 

The Carter episode shows how history cannot be told by rigid dogmatic partisans and narratives. Nor can the Trump episode. 

 

Carter, a Democrat, was targeted by media and the national security state, and his party affiliation was more-or-less incidental. They made Carter president just four years earlier. 

 

Then, when Carter arguably made an error on Iran, perceived for not showing enough strength, he was targeted for that. The elites, the national security state, leverage party animosities to their goals.

 

The GOP was happy to bring war-clubs to the "Get Carter" mugging (great pun on a movie title, btw). 

 

Again, the Carter years are informative for the Trump years, but vice versa. 

 

---30---

 

The curious upshot is that Carter probably did err on Tehran, although I am sure there are long arguments in that regard. 

 

Objective readers can see from the above, and hopefully their own circumspect investigations, that history is not black-and-white, that bad presidents can be witch-hunted along with good presidents, and that peevish but intense party animosities can always be leveraged.

 

Whether actual policies are good or bad...very hard to tell, and usually irrelevant to the witch-hunters.

 

A political party always wants to be in power, and control the White House. Any effective narrative, true or fabricated or a mixture, will be brought to bear. 

 

There are party myrmidons in the media, eager to amplify any party narratives. 

 

So...tell me your present-day political agendas, and I will accurately predict your version of the JFK legend, the Trump Russiagate vapors, and other histories. 

 

 

Edited September 1 by Benjamin Cole