New US Congress

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I would agree that forcing disclosure of all records is certainly better than nothing.

But another reason why it might not work is that a lengthy congressional committee investigation of record rentention and destruction would require a substantial expenditure of member and staff time. A committee of citizens or a special prosecutor would require no expenditure of time.

For Congress that could be a significant issue.

[William Kelly]

Bill, I would agree that forcing disclosure of all records is certainly better than nothing.

But another reason why it might not work is that a lengthy congressional committee investigation of record rentention and destruction would require a substantial expenditure of member and staff time. A committee of citizens or a special prosecutor would require no expenditure of time.

For Congress that could be a significant issue.

Tim, All I want is ONE DAY of hearings on JFK Act.

Won't cost a cent more than they are already spending.

Don't make this more difficult than it is.

A dozen witnesses on the hot seat and answers under oath.

You do the Citizens Committee and Special Proscutor,

I'll work on the Congressional Hearings.

Please don't respond to this thread unless you want to assist us in preparing a list of

JFK assassination records that were deliberatly destroyed, are missing or being

wrongfully withheld.

Thank You,

BK

[Tim Gratz]

BK wrote in his first post:

The former 3rd chairman of the HSCA (after Downing retired and Gonzalez melted), Conyers steered the contentious committee investigations of the JFK and MLK assassinations, concluding there was evidence of conspiracy in both cases, then locked away their records for 50 years.

Huh?

The chairman of the HSCA was Louis Stokes, Dem of Ohio.

I do not believe Conyers was even a MEMBER of the HSCA.

TEXT OF THE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TRANSMITTING THE FINAL REPORT:

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,

Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979.

Hon. EDMUND L. HENSHAW, JR.,

Clerk of the House,

U. S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. HENSHAW: On behalf of the Select Committee on Assassinations, and pursuant to the mandate of House Resolutions 222 and 433, 95th Congress, and House Resolution 49, 96th Congress, I am filing for presentation to the House of Representatives the enclosed Final Report with Additional and Dissenting Views of the Committee.

This supplements the Summary of Findings and Recommendations filed on January 2, 1979 (H.R. Rept. No. 95-1828, 95th Congress, 2d session (1979)).

Sincerely,

LOUIS STOKES, Chairman.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

BK wrote in his first post:

The former 3rd chairman of the HSCA (after Downing retired and Gonzalez melted), Conyers steered the contentious committee investigations of the JFK and MLK assassinations, concluding there was evidence of conspiracy in both cases, then locked away their records for 50 years.

Huh?

The chairman of the HSCA was Louis Stokes, Dem of Ohio.

I do not believe Conyers was even a MEMBER of the HSCA.

TEXT OF THE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TRANSMITTING THE FINAL REPORT:

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,

Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979.

Hon. EDMUND L. HENSHAW, JR.,

Clerk of the House,

U. S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. HENSHAW: On behalf of the Select Committee on Assassinations, and pursuant to the mandate of House Resolutions 222 and 433, 95th Congress, and House Resolution 49, 96th Congress, I am filing for presentation to the House of Representatives the enclosed Final Report with Additional and Dissenting Views of the Committee.

This supplements the Summary of Findings and Recommendations filed on January 2, 1979 (H.R. Rept. No. 95-1828, 95th Congress, 2d session (1979)).

Sincerely,

LOUIS STOKES, Chairman.

Yes, Tim,

Stokes was third chair of HSCA, after Downing and Gonzalas, and not Conyers, who chaired JFK Act hearings two decades later.

I get those Irish guys mixed up all the time.

Conyers is still in office and also passed the bill that honors jazz as America's music.

When we were trying to get Congress to release the HSCA records, Conyers took it to another level and expanded the law to order not just Congress but all agencies and departments of government to release their JFK assassination records.

Whatever happens in Congress on this issue, Conyers in the House and Specter in the Senate will have to approve.

BK

[William Kelly]

BK wrote in his first post:

The former 3rd chairman of the HSCA (after Downing retired and Gonzalez melted), Conyers steered the contentious committee investigations of the JFK and MLK assassinations, concluding there was evidence of conspiracy in both cases, then locked away their records for 50 years.

Huh?

The chairman of the HSCA was Louis Stokes, Dem of Ohio.

I do not believe Conyers was even a MEMBER of the HSCA.

TEXT OF THE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TRANSMITTING THE FINAL REPORT:

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,

Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979.

Hon. EDMUND L. HENSHAW, JR.,

Clerk of the House,

U. S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. HENSHAW: On behalf of the Select Committee on Assassinations, and pursuant to the mandate of House Resolutions 222 and 433, 95th Congress, and House Resolution 49, 96th Congress, I am filing for presentation to the House of Representatives the enclosed Final Report with Additional and Dissenting Views of the Committee.

This supplements the Summary of Findings and Recommendations filed on January 2, 1979 (H.R. Rept. No. 95-1828, 95th Congress, 2d session (1979)).

Sincerely,

LOUIS STOKES, Chairman.

Yes, Tim,

Stokes was third chair of HSCA, after Downing and Gonzalas, and not Conyers, who chaired JFK Act hearings two decades later.

It was late and I was tired and I get those Irish guys mixed up all the time.

Conyers is still in office and also passed the bill that honors jazz as America's music.

When we were trying to get Congress to release the HSCA records, Conyers took it to another level and expanded the law to order not just Congress but all agencies and departments of government to release their JFK assassination records.

Whatever happens in Congress on this issue, Conyers in the House and Specter in the Senate will have to approve.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Forum Rule (v) states:

Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. [Presumably this also includes getting the chairman of the official investigating committees correct.] This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. [Emphasis supplied.]

BK wrote:

It was late and I was tired and I get those Irish guys mixed up all the time.

Yet another inaccuracy, BK. Both Stokes and Conyers are African-Americans.

BK, you are setting a terrible example for all of the young students who are reading these postings!

Edited September 10, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide

Bill, perhaps we just have a "failure to communicate". It is not my suggestion that any new investigation be conducted by a congressional committee. But I do think Congress can authorize an investigation whether it be in the form of a special prosecutor or a "truth commission". This does not seem very different than the grand jury investigation that you support.

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide

Bill, perhaps we just have a "failure to communicate". It is not my suggestion that any new investigation be conducted by a congressional committee. But I do think Congress can authorize an investigation whether it be in the form of a special prosecutor or a "truth commission". This does not seem very different than the grand jury investigation that you support.

Tim,

We don't have a failure to communicate.

You obviously are determined to hijack this thread from a Congressional oversight of the JFK Act to something else.

I've asked you not to respond if you can't stay on topic and contribute to the list of destroyed, missing and wrongfully withheld records that can be addressed by Congressional hearings on the JFK Act.

Of course this is one of your old CREEEP dirty tricks tactics.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

BK wrote:

Of course this is one of your old CREEEP dirty tricks tactics.

The historical record is clear. I did not engage in any "dirty tricks" in Wisconsin or any other state. Even my 89 year old father who played host to Anthony Ulasewicz can attest to that.

If you have any proof that I ever engaged in any "dirty tricks", post it, Bill, or else I demand that you withdraw this charge.

What IS a dirty trick is to wrongfully accuse someone of political dirty tricks without proof. THAT is a dirty trick, and morally reprehensible.

I also think it is bizarre, to put it lightly, that you would characterize my discussion re the best and fastest way to solve the Kennedy assassination as a "dirty trick". How by anybody's estimation can an intelligent debate be considered "a dirty trick"? JFK enjoyed a lively debate and in fact owed his presidency to his debating skills (as well as to his photogenics).

I reiterate: either post some proof of your character assassination or withdraw your charge.

During his short presidency, JFK was wrongfully accused of many things. I do not think he would approve of some of the tactics employed by those who would proclaim their political allegiance to him.

[William Kelly]

BK wrote:

Of course this is one of your old CREEEP dirty tricks tactics.

The historical record is clear. I did not engage in any "dirty tricks" in Wisconsin or any other state. Even my 89 year old father who played host to Anthony Ulasewicz can attest to that.

If you have any proof that I ever engaged in any "dirty tricks", post it, Bill, or else I demand that you withdraw this charge.

What IS a dirty trick is to wrongfully accuse someone of political dirty tricks without proof. THAT is a dirty trick, and morally reprehensible.

I also think it is bizarre, to put it lightly, that you would characterize my discussion re the best and fastest way to solve the Kennedy assassination as a "dirty trick". How by anybody's estimation can an intelligent debate be considered "a dirty trick"? JFK enjoyed a lively debate and in fact owed his presidency to his debating skills (as well as to his photogenics).

I reiterate: either post some proof of your character assassination or withdraw your charge.

During his short presidency, JFK was wrongfully accused of many things. I do not think he would approve of some of the tactics employed by those who would proclaim their political allegiance to him.

Tim,

I'm accusing you of hijacking this post and rendering it so nobody else will bother wanting to read about Congressional oversight hearings, as you totally dominated the discussion and made it useless information.

B K

Edited for language.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Tim Gratz]

No, Bill, there is more to it than that and you cannot get out of it by fast feet.

You accused me of performing dirty tricks for CREEP.

Unless you have evidence to support that charge, it was a reprehensible smear job and if you have a shred of decency you will apologize. I suggest the ethics of your wrongfully accusing me of dirty tricks are quite similar to the FBI spying on Martin Luther King, Jr. and then attempting to discredit him and ruin him.

But if you are man enough to apologize, I promise no hard feelings. What is discouraging to me is that I have always been respectful to you and have indicated how much I have enjoyed many of your essays. So I do not understand your personal attack merely because we have a difference of opinion re how best and fastest to attempt to get the truth out.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

No, Bill, there is more to it than that and you cannot get out of it by fast feet.

You accused me of performing dirty tricks for CREEP.

Unless you have evidence to support that charge, it was a reprehensible smear job and if you have a shred of decency you will apologize. I suggest the ethics of your wrongfully accusing me of dirty tricks are quite similar to the FBI spying on Martin Luther King, Jr. and then attempting to discredit him and ruin him.

But if you are man enough to apologize, I promise no hard feelings. What is discouraging to me is that I have always been respectful to you and have indicated how much I have enjoyed many of your essays. So I do not understand your personal attack merely because we have a difference of opinion re how best and fastest to attempt to get the truth out.

No Tim,

I don't care if you worked for CREEP or are a CREEP. Whether you did it on purpose or you're an asshole and just can't help it, but you took what I think is the most important topic on this forum at the moment - the possible Congressional oversight of the JFK Act, and relegated it meaningless and worthless.

BK

Edited for Language.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Bill, I care about being falsely accused of unethical and perhaps illegal things. You would as well if the shoe was on the other foot.

Do you lack the gonads to just admit you went to far in accusing me of CREEP dirty tricks?

And by the way I do not think your ability or willingess to use a veiled obscenity against me should convince anyone that you are a "tough guy". As I said before, if you were really a "tough guy" you'd have the gonads to withdraw your smear.

And once again how is it "hijacking" your thread by having an honest discussion of whether it would be best to work for a full-fledged investigation (similar to your grand jury proposal (that I can assure you won't get out of the train session) rather than just a one day hearing on records review?

Now I will grant you this: I must admit that it would be a LOT easier to have a congressional committee investigate federal agency compliance with the JFK Act than to obtain a new investigation, in part because obtaining a committee hearing would technically only require the approval of the committee chairman and perhaps a majority of the members. But I do suspect the matter is of such significance that the committee chairman would not schedule hearings absent the consent of Speaker Pelosi. I would also agree with you that if you obtain such a hearing that could become the "launchboard" for a full investigation.

So have we made any progress in reasoning together?

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

If Congress does what they are suppose[sic] to do - mandated to do, Oversee the JFK Act of 1992, then there will be witenesses [sic] deposed under oath and testifying before the Waxman Committee or Clay Subcommitte on Information Policy, Census and National Archives.

Kindly state the specific section of the JFK Records Review Act that "mandates" Congress to do any such thing.

Moreover, if you do not think Congress would authorize a new investigation, what makes you believe these committees will hold hearings and depose witnesses?

JFK ACT

SECTION 4

JFK Assassination Records Collection at NARA

.......

(d) Additional Report Requirements

.....(3) Oversight.

Oversight. The Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Government Affairs of the Senate shall have continuing oversight jurisdiction with respect to the collection......

SECTION 7

.....(L) Oversight.

(1) The Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Government Affairs of the Senate shall have continuing oversight jurisdiction with respect to the official conduct of the Review Board and the disposition of the posponed records after the termination of the Review Board and shall have access to any records held or created by the Review Board.

(2) The Review Board shall have the duty to cooperate with the exrecise of such oversight jurisdiction.......

BK

[Tim Gratz]

From Bill's post:

The Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives . . . shall have continuing oversight jurisdiction with respect to . . . the disposition of the posponed records after the termination of the Review Board and shall have access to any records held or created by the Review Board.

Bill, the Committee on Government Operations was, as you probably know, recently renamed the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Here are its members (Democrats listed first):

Committee Members, 110th Congress

Majority:

Henry Waxman, Chairman, California

Tom Lantos, California

Ed Towns, New York

Paul E. Kanjorski, Pennsylvania

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York

Elijah Cummings, Maryland

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio

Danny K. Davis, Illinois

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts

William Clay, Missouri

Diane Watson, California

Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts

Brian Higgins, New York

John Yarmuth, Kentucky

Bruce Braley, Iowa

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Jim Cooper, Tennessee

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland

Paul Hodes, New Hampshire

Chris Murphy, Connecticut

John Sarbanes, Maryland

Peter Welch, Vermont

Minority:

Tom Davis, Ranking Member, Virginia

Dan Burton, Indiana

Christopher Shays, Connecticut

John M. McHugh, New York

John Mica, Florida

Mark Souder, Indiana

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania

Chris Cannon, Utah

John James Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Michael R. Turner, Ohio

Darrell Issa, California

Kenny Marchant, Texas

Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia

Patrick McHenry, North Carolina

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina

Brian Bilbray, California

Bill Sali, Idaho

Jim Jordan, Ohio

There is a subcommittee dealing with the National Archives.

Its chairman and ranking minority member are:

Chairman: William Lacy Clay (D-MO)

Ranking Member: Michael Turner (R-TN)

There is also a subcommittee dealing with National Security.

Its chairman and ranking minority member are:

Chairman: John F. Tierney (D-MA)

Ranking Member: Christopher Shays (R-CT)

Lamar Waldron informs me that Rep. Shays was helpful in holding a hearing at which Waldron actually testified, as I recall.

So in line with your proposal I think the first thing to ask might be:

Are any Forum members represented in Congress by any of the Committee members as set forth above?

Edited September 12, 2007 by Tim Gratz