New US Congress

[Stephen Miller]

We can also add Gary Cornwell to the list too.

I also wonder what they say about David Atlee Phillips aka Maurice Bishop "Phillips lied between his teeth and pulled a terrific con job on the Committee".

Let's get cracking and contact them ASAP.

[Tim Gratz]

Yes, I'd forgotten all about Cornwell in this post.

Stephen, I think it might be best to assemble a group of highly respected authors to make the intial approach, in a joint letter.

I am thinking of, for example, Larrry Hancock, Prof Mcknight, David Talbot, Lamar Waldron.

I can see using the endorsements of the former staff members in the proposed ad.

I will also post tonight what I think members can start to do RIGHT NOW to organize support for a SP or other form of new investigation.

[Stephen Miller]

Great! I think that sounds like a very good proposal. Would be interested to hear from the ex-HSCA people and hear their stories too like Gaeton Fonzi has done in The Last Investigation.

[Tim Gratz]

I have Prof Blakey's address.

I assume Tannenbaum can be reached through his publisher.

It is easy to get Cornwell's address (he is a practicing lawyer in Texas). Same with Schwarz but he works in Manhattan.

I can get to Fonzi through my friend Gordon Winslow.

I am not sure of addresses for Lopez, Hardway, Orr and Fenton.

Anybody have any leads in that regard?

[Stephen Miller]

Another one to add from the HSCA period is Kevin Walsh. I think he works with Jim Lesar these days in DC.

[Tim Gratz]

Jim Lesar wants Congress to act, I know.

He believes new work should be done to demonstrate the viability of the acoustics evidence. Of course, the acostics study if true is proof positive (well 95%) of a conspiracy.

Thanks for the information re Kevin Walsh, Stephen!

[Myra Bronstein]

Bump to keep this near the thread about the newspaper ad...

It pertains to goals of the ad IMO.

[Christopher Hall]

The members of the HSCA:

Louis Stokes, (Ohio), Chairman

Retired from Congress in 1999.

Richardson Preyer, (North Carolina)

Died in 2001.

Walter E. Fauntroy, (District of Columbia)

No longer in Congress but a very impressive CV. He was Martin Luther King's representative to Presidents JFK and LBJ. I am sure he retains much influence.

Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, (California)

No longer in Congress but her husband is a prominent philanthropist. Hmm.

Christopher Dodd, (Connecticut)

Candidate for POTUS

Harold Ford, Sr., (Tennessee)

No longer in Congress but his son is.

Floyd Fithian, (Indiana)

Died in 2003.

Robert Edgar, (Pennsylvania)

No longer in Congress but the president of Common Cause.

Samuel L. Devine, (Ohio)

Died in 1997.

Stewart McKinney, (Connecticut)

Died in 1987.

Charles Thone, (Nebraska)

Alive but no longer a MC.

Harold S. Sawyer, (Michigan)

Deceased 2003

Well this exercise produced some interesting possibilities. I assume each of these people who is still alive is as upset about the Joannides matter as Blakey is. Depending on one's theology, the deceased members may know the answer to how much the HSCA got right.

Harold Ford, Sr.'s son, Harold, Jr., no longer serves in Congress.

He gave up his House seat in 2006 in connection with an unsuccessful campaign against Bob Corker to succeed Bill Frist in the Senate.

Harold Ford, Jr. is the Director of the Democratic Leadership Conference (Bill Clinton's benefactor organization in 1992), and he is a commentator on Fox News Channel and a Director of Merrill Lynch.

I think that he holds 2 or 3 more positions, but I can't recall them.

Harold Ford, Sr. is a lobbyist in Miami, Fla.

The "Ford" seat that was held by Sr. and Jr. for 30 years is now held by Steve Cohen, a white former State Senator who is much more liberal than Jr.

Cohen may actually be a great candidate for Congressional sponsorship of efforts to re-investigate the assassination of JFK and its cover-up.

My guess is that Jr., who is perhaps more influential now than when he was a member of Congress, would probably oppose the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK and its cover-up as a result of his "centrist" views.

[William Kelly]

The members of the HSCA:

Well this exercise produced some interesting possibilities. I assume each of these people who is still alive is as upset about the Joannides matter as Blakey is. Depending on one's theology, the deceased members may know the answer to how much the HSCA got right.

Harold Ford, Sr.'s son, Harold, Jr., no longer serves in Congress.

He gave up his House seat in 2006 in connection with an unsuccessful campaign against Bob Corker to succeed Bill Frist in the Senate.

Harold Ford, Jr. is the Director of the Democratic Leadership Conference (Bill Clinton's benefactor organization in 1992), and he is a commentator on Fox News Channel and a Director of Merrill Lynch.

I think that he holds 2 or 3 more positions, but I can't recall them.

Harold Ford, Sr. is a lobbyist in Miami, Fla.

The "Ford" seat that was held by Sr. and Jr. for 30 years is now held by Steve Cohen, a white former State Senator who is much more liberal than Jr.

Cohen may actually be a great candidate for Congressional sponsorship of efforts to re-investigate the assassination of JFK and its cover-up.

My guess is that Jr., who is perhaps more influential now than when he was a member of Congress, would probably oppose the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK and its cover-up as a result of his "centrist" views.

Chris,

I think important to understand that Congress will not and should not re-investigate the assassination of JFK, nor is anyone other than TGratz trying to convince anyone that is the way to go.

As far as Congress goes, the legislative branch of government is responsible for making laws, overseeing them and approving the budget.

If we can convince Congress of anything, they should live up to their responsibilty to oversee the JFK Act, and hold hearings on the issues related to that law - the destruction of records, missing documents and the illegal withholding of documents.

When those oversight hearings on the JFK Act are held, and they will be some day, then they will spark additonal legal actions - that will assit in the eventual solving of the crime.

Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide, but they have an important role to play, and the citizens and the public must convince them to do their job.

Trying to convince them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere.

Bill Kelly

[Myra Bronstein]

The members of the HSCA:

Well this exercise produced some interesting possibilities. I assume each of these people who is still alive is as upset about the Joannides matter as Blakey is. Depending on one's theology, the deceased members may know the answer to how much the HSCA got right.

Harold Ford, Sr.'s son, Harold, Jr., no longer serves in Congress.

He gave up his House seat in 2006 in connection with an unsuccessful campaign against Bob Corker to succeed Bill Frist in the Senate.

Harold Ford, Jr. is the Director of the Democratic Leadership Conference (Bill Clinton's benefactor organization in 1992), and he is a commentator on Fox News Channel and a Director of Merrill Lynch.

I think that he holds 2 or 3 more positions, but I can't recall them.

Harold Ford, Sr. is a lobbyist in Miami, Fla.

The "Ford" seat that was held by Sr. and Jr. for 30 years is now held by Steve Cohen, a white former State Senator who is much more liberal than Jr.

Cohen may actually be a great candidate for Congressional sponsorship of efforts to re-investigate the assassination of JFK and its cover-up.

My guess is that Jr., who is perhaps more influential now than when he was a member of Congress, would probably oppose the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK and its cover-up as a result of his "centrist" views.

Chris,

I think important to understand that Congress will not and should not re-investigate the assassination of JFK, nor is anyone other than TGratz trying to convince anyone that is the way to go.

As far as Congress goes, the legislative branch of government is responsible for making laws, overseeing them and approving the budget.

If we can convince Congress of anything, they should live up to their responsibilty to oversee the JFK Act, and hold hearings on the issues related to that law - the destruction of records, missing documents and the illegal withholding of documents.

When those oversight hearings on the JFK Act are held, and they will be some day, then they will spark additonal legal actions - that will assit in the eventual solving of the crime.

Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide, but they have an important role to play, and the citizens and the public must convince them to do their job.

Trying to convince them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere.

Bill Kelly

You're right.

It would lead to a third cover-up, or a cover up of the HSCA which was itself a cover up of the WC.

So I think a (the?) major goal of an ad should be to pressure congress on the JFK act.

I wonder what the odds are that genuine incriminating and/or edifying documents remain in the archives, unscrubbed and intact.

[Christopher Hall]

The members of the HSCA:

Well this exercise produced some interesting possibilities. I assume each of these people who is still alive is as upset about the Joannides matter as Blakey is. Depending on one's theology, the deceased members may know the answer to how much the HSCA got right.

Harold Ford, Sr.'s son, Harold, Jr., no longer serves in Congress.

He gave up his House seat in 2006 in connection with an unsuccessful campaign against Bob Corker to succeed Bill Frist in the Senate.

Harold Ford, Jr. is the Director of the Democratic Leadership Conference (Bill Clinton's benefactor organization in 1992), and he is a commentator on Fox News Channel and a Director of Merrill Lynch.

I think that he holds 2 or 3 more positions, but I can't recall them.

Harold Ford, Sr. is a lobbyist in Miami, Fla.

The "Ford" seat that was held by Sr. and Jr. for 30 years is now held by Steve Cohen, a white former State Senator who is much more liberal than Jr.

Cohen may actually be a great candidate for Congressional sponsorship of efforts to re-investigate the assassination of JFK and its cover-up.

My guess is that Jr., who is perhaps more influential now than when he was a member of Congress, would probably oppose the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK and its cover-up as a result of his "centrist" views.

Chris,

I think important to understand that Congress will not and should not re-investigate the assassination of JFK, nor is anyone other than TGratz trying to convince anyone that is the way to go.

As far as Congress goes, the legislative branch of government is responsible for making laws, overseeing them and approving the budget.

If we can convince Congress of anything, they should live up to their responsibilty to oversee the JFK Act, and hold hearings on the issues related to that law - the destruction of records, missing documents and the illegal withholding of documents.

When those oversight hearings on the JFK Act are held, and they will be some day, then they will spark additonal legal actions - that will assit in the eventual solving of the crime.

Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide, but they have an important role to play, and the citizens and the public must convince them to do their job.

Trying to convince them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere.

Bill Kelly

What you are saying makes sense.

Nothing would come of yet another Congressional investigation into the assassination, and I wouldn't trust the results anyway, because it would wind up being just another brokered bipartisan report.

But, it will be fun to see whether Congress can determine what happened in the Men's room of the Minneapolis - St. Paul Airport a few months ago, which should be considerably more in keeping with what Congress is capable of competently investigating.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Christopher Hall

[Tim Gratz]

BK wrote:

I think important to understand that Congress will not and should not re-investigate the assassination of JFK, nor is anyone other than TGratz trying to convince anyone that is the way to go.

I think he meant "it is".

We have had this same discussion on another thread.

So my challenge to Bill, Myra and Christopher is:

Does your Representative believe in his or her heart of hearts that there was a conspiracy, as the overwhelming majority of Americans do?

A dollar to a donut says none of you can answer that question. Without knowing the sentiments of the Members of Congress on that issue, one cannot predict how much effort it would take for them to authorize an investigation.

Please understand I do not envision an investigation by a congressional committee like the HSCA. More like a special prosecutor or a "truth commission".

Let me put it as succintly as I can.

No document will tell you who killed JFK. (I assume you'd like to know that.)

A living witness might still have the answer. (Gene Wheaton claimes Carl Jenkins does, for instance.)

But over time the still-living witnesses will die.

So IMO we have only a limited "window of opportunity" to have a person with the authority to put persons under oath, grant them immunity if necessary, and ask them: "Who Killed JFK?" Only if we can accomplish an investigation by SOMEONE with the authority to answer questions will history ever know who killed JFK (granted it is possible no living witness DOES know the answer to that question). You can get ten million documents released and spend every single waking minute of your life poring over them and, I can assure you, you will never learned who killed JFK.

********************************************************************************

**

P.S. to Mr. Hall: You have an interesting biography and you are a blessed. I did enjoy the humour of your post! Please understand I do not want a "brokered bipartisan report" as you suggest would be the result of a new investigation. I want a special prosecutor with the intelligence and gonads to take the investigation wherever it will go. Again, my point is that only a live witness can tell us who killed JFK.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Thomas H. Purvis]

BK wrote:

I think important to understand that Congress will not and should not re-investigate the assassination of JFK, nor is anyone other than TGratz trying to convince anyone that is the way to go.

I think he meant "it is".

We have had this same discussion on another thread.

So my challenge to Bill, Myra and Christopher is:

Does your Representative believe in his or her heart of hearts that there was a conspiracy, as the overwhelming majority of Americans do?

A dollar to a donut says none of you can answer that question. Without knowing the sentiments of the Members of Congress on that issue, one cannot predict how much effort it would take for them to authorize an investigation.

Please understand I do not envision an investigation by a congressional committee like the HSCA. More like a special prosecutor or a "truth commission".

Let me put it as succintly as I can.

No document will tell you who killed JFK. (I assume you'd like to know that.)

A living witness might still have the answer. (Gene Wheaton claimes Carl Jenkins does, for instance.)

But over time the still-living witnesses will die.

So IMO we have only a limited "window of opportunity" to have a person with the authority to put persons under oath, grant them immunity if necessary, and ask them: "Who Killed JFK?" Only if we can accomplish an investigation by SOMEONE with the authority to answer questions will history ever know who killed JFK (granted it is possible no living witness DOES know the answer to that question). You can get ten million documents released and spend every single waking minute of your life poring over them and, I can assure you, you will never learned who killed JFK.

********************************************************************************

**

P.S. to Mr. Hall: You have an interesting biography and you are a blessed. I did enjoy the humour of your post! Please understand I do not want a "brokered bipartisan report" as you suggest would be the result of a new investigation. I want a special prosecutor with the intelligence and gonads to take the investigation wherever it will go. Again, my point is that only a live witness can tell us who killed JFK.

Again, my point is that only a live witness can tell us who killed JFK.

Well, I can find you several who swear to have been kidnapped by aliens in UFO's. Therefore, and based on the previous number of individual claims, it would be assumed that there would be little difficulty in finding someone who is living that would make such a claim.

However, there is considerable difference between a "claim" and a "factual claim".

And, in case one wants a factual and true claim, they will most probably have to wait around until the second resurrection.

Then LHO can inform you that he was in fact the shooter!

But then again, it would be most unlikely that the majority here would believe LHO were he even living today and made such a claim.

[William Kelly]

The members of the HSCA:

Well this exercise produced some interesting possibilities. I assume each of these people who is still alive is as upset about the Joannides matter as Blakey is. Depending on one's theology, the deceased members may know the answer to how much the HSCA got right.

Harold Ford, Sr.'s son, Harold, Jr., no longer serves in Congress.

He gave up his House seat in 2006 in connection with an unsuccessful campaign against Bob Corker to succeed Bill Frist in the Senate.

Harold Ford, Jr. is the Director of the Democratic Leadership Conference (Bill Clinton's benefactor organization in 1992), and he is a commentator on Fox News Channel and a Director of Merrill Lynch.

I think that he holds 2 or 3 more positions, but I can't recall them.

Harold Ford, Sr. is a lobbyist in Miami, Fla.

The "Ford" seat that was held by Sr. and Jr. for 30 years is now held by Steve Cohen, a white former State Senator who is much more liberal than Jr.

Cohen may actually be a great candidate for Congressional sponsorship of efforts to re-investigate the assassination of JFK and its cover-up.

My guess is that Jr., who is perhaps more influential now than when he was a member of Congress, would probably oppose the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK and its cover-up as a result of his "centrist" views.

Chris,

I think important to understand that Congress will not and should not re-investigate the assassination of JFK, nor is anyone other than TGratz trying to convince anyone that is the way to go.

As far as Congress goes, the legislative branch of government is responsible for making laws, overseeing them and approving the budget.

If we can convince Congress of anything, they should live up to their responsibilty to oversee the JFK Act, and hold hearings on the issues related to that law - the destruction of records, missing documents and the illegal withholding of documents.

When those oversight hearings on the JFK Act are held, and they will be some day, then they will spark additonal legal actions - that will assit in the eventual solving of the crime.

Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide, but they have an important role to play, and the citizens and the public must convince them to do their job.

Trying to convince them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere.

Bill Kelly

What you are saying makes sense.

Nothing would come of yet another Congressional investigation into the assassination, and I wouldn't trust the results anyway, because it would wind up being just another brokered bipartisan report.

But, it will be fun to see whether Congress can determine what happened in the Men's room of the Minneapolis - St. Paul Airport a few months ago, which should be considerably more in keeping with what Congress is capable of competently investigating.

Christopher,

I don't think Congress wants to go there either.

It seems that the good Senator has resigned.

Which makes me think of Walter Jenkins, and what he was up to in the same kind of place.

Jim Garrison also recalls how he thought he was being set up in a public men's room at one time.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

I doubt that Craig was set up BUT

it is clear that not only had he NOT committed a lewd and lascivious act, he had not even expressly propositioned the undercover cop in the next stall.

The arresting officer essentially told him to pay the $500 fine and the incident would not be reported. I don't think the officer did call it to public attention but the press was apparently examining Craig very carefully.

It would seem to me that a civil libertarian should be concerned about a police officer arresting someone when there has been no illegal act committed.

Had Craig contested the citation, he probably would have won but the incident would have still come to public attention and he would still be gone.

He may very well be a hypocrite about his sexual practices but had he his senses about him, he should have told the officer that he ad done nothing wrong and there would be severe repercussions if any charges were filed. And I think he should have called up the police chief with the same warning.

BK wrote:

Which makes me think of Walter Jenkins, and what he was up to in the same kind of place.

Bill, we are all adults here, it will not offend us if you use the term "rest room".