Jump to content
The Education Forum

Justice - Ford (& Specter)

Recommended Posts

Can't help but throw this out on the table - as a US Citizen, it gnaws at me. Let me answer the question before it's raised: I am neither a millionaire, nor an attorney. If I was both, I wouldn't be asking this question, as I believe I would know clearly what steps I would need to take to move in the desired direction.

Everyone recognizes that Gerald Ford played a large role in the Warren Commission, which officially halted other investigation efforts, selectively decided whom to call to testify, asked all the wrong questions, and concluded that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the work of a single man, firing 3 shots, etc. However, we also know that Gerald Ford personally tampered with evidence to assist in the ridiculous 'single bullet theory,' advanced by Arlen Specter. As pointed out by Wim Dankbaar, Siebert even accounts in a recorded interview that he objected to Ford's deliberate reconstruction of the wound in Kennedy's back, at the time it occurred, saying: "That's a FALSE statement."

It doesn't need to be stated, but I'll capture it in any event: The wound in Kennedy's back was only a 'flesh wound.' It failed to exit the body, and from all indications may have worked it's way out of the body during resuscitation

efforts, and ended up on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital. The re-positioning of this 'flesh' wound gave illegitimate credence to the theory that the bullet then exited the President's body, passing out through the small 'entrance' wound in the throat, without striking any bony material, etc. Let's stop it there - the rest of the nonsense is well known.

Shouldn't 'someone' be considering bringing these 2 individuals to trial for this well publicized subversion? Shouldn't they be penalized for what is clearly their role in assisting the cover-up through tampering with evidence, and submitting false claims? Something? How could anyone today overturn the conclusion and the validity of the Warren Report? What's being done today with the 1979 conclusion of the HSCA? Maybe we could ask Scalia on a duck hunt to discuss the matter.

If we concede that these 2 individuals are clearly responsible for violating a number of laws, not to mention ethics, with the end result of creating the biggest lie ever told, why should they continue to enjoy their present lifestyle uninterrupted and uncontested?

If I get caught for speeding, I am issued a ticket, and I am required to pay that ticket, and perhaps some additional penalties, such as surcharges and increases in insurance coverage. That's because I broke a law, I understand the authority behind the law, the reason for the law, the consequences, etc. Also, because I got caught. Isn't there sufficient evidence and proof today to demonstrate that these machinations were deliberate acts of malefaction and malfeasance?

Arlen Specter was only recently re-elected as Senator to the State of Pennsylvania! Ford continued to state that LHO was the lone killer and the WC was completely accurate as late as 2003! Madness!

Here's a question: Does it get you angry?

Gerald Ford is claiming that the allegation from the documentary (“The Guilty Men”) was “the greatest, most damaging accusation ever made against a former vice president and president in American History.” Those are the words of a very angry man.

So why don't we make Ford the new focus of the greatest, most damaging accusation ever made against a former vice president and president in American History? You directly participated in the cover-up of the assassination of an elected President of the United States. You think 'anger' is an island unto yourself?

Ridiculous, but if someone offered a website with a PayPal option for donations to 'buy' an OJ Simpson type legal team to pursue clear violations of Law, as related to -- at the minimum -- tampering with evidence, I'd contribute; even if I didn't believe for one moment that it was at all feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting strategy, Lee.

By the way, Sibert's statement: "That's a false statement", does not refer to the location of the backwound (although that is a false statement too), but rather to Specter's statement that Sibert did not make any notes. Sibert DID make notes, hence Specter's statement that he did not, was false.

Allowing Sibert's notes into the evidence would blow up Specter's Single Bullet theory, so there you have it: surpression of vital evidence in a major crime makes you guilty of the conspiracy as an accessory after the fact. This is a PROVABLE offense, with living witnesses to support it. Yet nothing is done.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

KGB officers in the CIA assassinated President Kennedy as part of a two-pronged assassination plan to get their CIA colleague Barry Goldwater elected in 1964, and Gerald Ford played a key role. The plan also included assassinating President Johnson right before the election. They focused in on future President Gerald Ford as one of the Members of Congress who could certainly be of benefit to them and the CIA.

There wasn’t much relevant information on Warren Commission member Gerald Ford, which is indicative of his lackluster career. What little information there is about Ford is reflective of the fact that he was malleable and the powers-that-be would shape a better political future for him.

As cited in the section on George H. W. Bush, Ford was appointed Vice President after Nixon consulted Republican National Committee Chairman George Bush.

Nixon subsequently resigned because of Watergate and after Ford became President, he appointed George Bush to be Director of the CIA. Senate Democrats said they wouldn’t resist Bush’s appointment as long as Ford agreed not to choose him as his Vice-Presidential running mate in 1976, and Ford agreed not to.

(Bush was personally endorsed by Barry Goldwater to be Ford’s Vice President after Nixon resigned in 1974, but Ford chose Nelson Rockefeller, the man that George H. W. Bush’s father said was “unfit to be President.”)

When Kennedy was assassinated the point was clearly made that Goldwater was not the right candidate to take on President Johnson.

On December 5, 1963, an Evans and Novak article in the Washington Post said, “A surprising number of Republicans are now boosting Ford as a middle-ground compromise for President. Ford is a dim figure nationally, but his appointment to the commission to investigate the assassination may give him a boost.”

On January 3, 1964, when Goldwater announced his candidacy, he held a news conference “following his formal 450-word announcement.”

The Washington Post reported, “Goldwater said he will start his campaign Monday night when he addresses a GOP dinner in Grand Rapids, Michigan, honoring Representative Gerald Ford.”

On January 6, 1964, the Grand Rapids Press reported, “Local Republicans declare that the main purpose of Goldwater’s visit to Grand Rapids is to raise funds for local, state and national party organizations.” It also said Goldwater’s intention was to “kickoff” his campaign, but it said nothing about the dinner “honoring Representative Gerald Ford.”

This “fund-raising” dinner had been scheduled for Saturday, November 23, 1963, the day after Kennedy’s assassination, but on November 23rd the Associated Press reported, “Kent County Republican Headquarters said Friday Senator Barry Goldwater has canceled his scheduled Saturday appearance here.”

Goldwater “notified the Kent County group by telephone call following word that President Kennedy had been assassinated . . . The dinner will be rescheduled for December or January.” (The perfect place for Goldwater to “kickoff” his campaign.)

At the Republican convention in July 1964, while Ford was still on the Warren Commission, there was speculation about who Goldwater’s Vice-Presidential running mate would be.

Goldwater “confirmed reports that Republican National Chairman, Representative William Miller of New York and Representative Gerald Ford of Michigan were under consideration.” He chose Miller.

In February 1967, “Mr. Ford said he had been for a number of years a member of an appropriations subcommittee entrusted with intelligence agency oversight.” This was when Ford said Congress wouldn’t investigate the CIA’s use of bogus foundations to channel millions of dollars to American organizations and institutions because, according to Ford, “There is enough Congressional surveillance of the CIA.”

Six months after Warren’s cover-up team completed its task, Gerald Ford made it very clear that President Johnson had no aversion to engaging in a “cover up of wrongdoing.”

In a speech to the National Press Club on March 25, 1965, “Representative Gerald R. Ford said today that Republicans should be given control of two Congressional investigating committees to guard against ‘any cover up of wrongdoing’ by the Democratic Administration.”

Ford stated, “The committees on government operations of the House and Senate, which have broad investigating authority, should be under the control of the minority party.”

Citing that there was a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in Congress, Ford also said, “It smacks of legalized collusion when we find the suspect and the District Attorney are blood relatives.”

For ten months, Ford was on Warren’s Commission, which had broad investigating authority and it essentially investigated a “government operation,” but Earl Warren and his team were, indeed, blood relatives of the suspect. They claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin because both President Johnson and “the suspect” wanted them to.

On February 19, 1967, two days after it was revealed that Jim Garrison was conducting an investigation, which shortly thereafter revealed the feared Cuban connection, Gerald Ford “said today that any new evidence uncovered by the New Orleans District Attorney’s office into the death of President Kennedy should be ‘immediately’ transmitted to officials in Washington.”

Ford warned, “Whatever evidence is found should be transferred to the United States Attorney General and to the President for consideration.”

“Mr. Ford said he was sure ‘the Attorney General and the President would be glad to get any new information into the killing so it can be properly analyzed by proper authorities.’” (Properly analyzed by proper authorities?)

One day earlier, on February 18, 1967, Jim Garrison had “issued a statement predicting ‘arrests and convictions,’” and Gerald Ford was obviously unnerved by this prospect.

Jim Garrison stated the fact that Oswald didn’t kill anyone and Garrison uncovered the Cuban connection, following it right to the CIA’s doorstep, the “government operation” where there was “wrongdoing” that was covered up.

Ford and the rest of Warren’s team engaged in the cover up because this “legalized collusion” was supposedly going to prevent a nuclear war, so they never mentioned the feared Cuban connection, the wrongdoing that was simply fabricated to cover up the murder of a United States President.

Fortunately, Jim Garrison was an actual District Attorney and he wasn’t a blood relative of the suspect, but Richard Russell, Allen Dulles, and Gerald Ford couldn’t have been more closely related to “the suspect.”

Within months of the Warren Commission’s report, Ford apparently began thinking about how President Johnson would benefit politically if the Government Operations Committees, controlled by Democrats, had a propensity to hide information, just as the Warren Commission did.

Ford was obviously correlating his political career to his work on the Warren Commission, his knowledge of wrongdoing, and his knowledge that President Johnson would engage in a “cover up of wrongdoing.”

Gerald Ford admitting that President Johnson would engage in a cover up of wrongdoing was the first admission from a member of Warren’s cover up team, whereas Warren and Russell made their admissions after Jim Garrison’s investigation and prosecutorial effort, which ended in 1969, revealed a CIA-Cuban connection.

It’s no wonder that Ford was unnerved when Jim Garrison’s investigation became public and Garrison predicted “arrests and convictions.” Ford would not relish admitting that he engaged in a cover up of wrongdoing, and wanted Garrison’s information to be “properly analyzed by proper authorities,” as though a District Attorney with information on criminal activity in his jurisdiction was not a proper authority to investigate that criminal activity.

As cited in the section on the CIA operating domestically, Congress came up with a bizarre recommendation during the Watergate scandal that said the CIA should officially be allowed to operate domestically if President Nixon says it can.

In August 1974, ten months after Congress’s bizarre recommendation, Nixon resigned as a result of Watergate, and in 1976, with future President George H. W. Bush as his CIA Director, President Gerald Ford became the first President to sign an Executive Order that gave the CIA an official excuse to operate domestically.

On December 5, 1963, Congressman Gerald Ford was “a dim figure nationally” and George H. W. Bush was “a personable Houston oil man” running for the Senate. Less than ten years later, Nixon appointed Ford as his Vice President, due to George Bush’s ever-present manipulating and maneuvering.

Ford, unlike George H. W. Bush, was not an intelligence officer targeted for political office, nor a high profile defender of the CIA, but he was someone that the KGB officers began using early on in their quest to take control.

His political career certainly benefited from it, but it didn’t compare to George H. W. Bush’s meteoric rise because George Bush was Barry Goldwater’s “bright hope on the political horizon.”

Ford was “a dim figure nationally,” but he was allegedly someone that Goldwater was considering as a Vice-Presidential running mate in 1964.

Gerald Ford, the only member of the Commission who was still alive in 1984, testified behind closed-doors that the CIA had supplied ample information to the Warren Commission that clearly showed that Cubans had assassinated President Kennedy, and he testified that the Warren Commission was instructed to cover up the information about Cubans, pursuant to President Johnson’s warning that if Cubans were involved, “it might even get us into a war, a nuclear war.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...