You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2017.

My last two posts have been about the JFK files, particularly those released on October 26 and on July 24, 2017.

Yesterday’s post was about whether Lee Harvey Oswald was working for the CIA.

Today’s memo, dated January 30, 1964, came from the FBI. The memo states that Oswald never worked for the agency.

A summary with excerpts follows. Emphases mine below.

Testimony had been given the previous week to the President’s Commission, specifically to that of Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County, alleging that Oswald had been an FBI informant.

The memo states that this was not the case:

Contrary to testimony, Oswald was never FBI informant, was never paid money for information and was never assigned any symbol number. Procedures we use in informant program preclude the possibility of Oswald’s connection with FBI as an informant without knowledge of a Seat of Government.

We closely supervise all aspects of informant program. Field offices cannot develop security informants without Bureau authorization, which is based on exhaustive background investigation to determine reliability, trustworthiness and stability.

When we do authorize, we follow informant’s development through progress letters which field offices must submit at four-month intervals.

The memo goes on to discuss approval and assignment of code names and symbol numbers, both of which are indexed. The same field office is not allowed to re-assign them at a later date.

Any payments authorised and made are recorded, along with the payee’s name and the reason why.

The memo says that, after the FBI office checked and double-checked, no payment to Oswald appeared in the records.

The person alleging that Oswald was an FBI informant said that his number was 179. The memo explains that 179 had been used by the Dallas and New Orleans offices. In Dallas, 179 had been assigned to a madam and was in current use at that time. In New Orleans — where Oswald had also lived — 179 was used by an informant between 1941 and 1944, then the number was retired. Both informants are named in the memo.

Outside of the United States, a Mexican informant — also named — held 179 at the time of the memo. Said informant provided information about the Mexican-Russian Institute of Cultural Exchange in Morelia, in the state of Michoacan.

The pages of the memo available from the National Archives are 2 and 8. The statement at the bottom of page 8 — probably not the end of the memo — states that Oswald would not have received a number unless he had undergone a prior background investigation by the field office considering him. He would also have had to be approved as an informant by an office higher up in the FBI.

Ultimately:

There is no record of any such request and no record of any such approval.

Tomorrow: more on the mysterious Lee Harvey Oswald

Yesterday’s post began a series on the JFK files, in particular, those released on October 26 and on July 24, 2017.

One of the questions still outstanding concerns Lee Harvey Oswald having been a CIA asset. Part of this 1975 memo was released last week:

Tantalisingly, that memo stops on page 4 with this question:

MR. BELIN: Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or an agency …

A decade earlier, in 1964, then-CIA director John McCone sent a memo to the US Secret Service chief James J. Rowley about Oswald. This is the first page, courtesy of The Conservative Treehouse:

You can read the full document and a 2004 analysis from Walt Brown here. Excerpts and a summary follow. Emphases mine below.

First, these are the paragraphs highlighted above:

In response to the request made by your office on 24 February 1964 re: Lee Oswald’s activities and assignments on behalf of this agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, there follows a narrative summary of the internal subversive activities of the Oswald subject.

Oswald subject was trained by this agency, under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence, for Soviet assignments. During preliminary training, in 1957, subject was active in aerial reconnaissance of mainland China and maintained a security clearance up to the “confidential” level. His military records during this period are open to your agency and I have directed they be forwarded to the Commission.

Secondly, the memo provides more details about Oswald. It states that he was trained ‘at our own Camp Peary site’ in 1957 and 1958. He was sent to the Soviet Union in 1959, near Minsk:

It would not be advantageous at this time to divulge the specifics of that assignment; however, if you wish this information, it can be made available for your personal inspection within the confines of our own offices, or I can send it by courier on the condition that it not leave the custody of the courier. I am concerned that if this information were in any way disclosed to the wrong persons, it would lead the media to erroneously claim this agency, and perhaps others, were directly involved in the Dallas action. While the persons involved were in the employ of this agency, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it is virtually impossible for this or any agency to maintain full, 24-hours-a-day responsibility over its operatives.

In 1961, Oswald was hospitalised in Minsk for a routine operation. The memo states that he should have been there for only three days. Instead, he was there 11 days. McCone says that Oswald might have undergone some type of chemical or electronic control while in hospital. Six days after his release he met his future wife, Marina Prusakova. At the time McCone sent the memo, he had not yet received an intelligence report he had requested from the CIA’s Soviet Embassy contact about Marina Oswald.

McCone’s memo states that Oswald became unstable after his release from hospital and subsequent marriage to Marina. He was of no further significant use to the CIA. He returned to the United States with Marina:

After his return to the U.S., Oswald worked in New Orleans through the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean and Friends of Democratic Cuba; his case officer was SAIC Guy Bannister from the Chicago F131 office. He was transferred from his assignments there after he was arrested and fined stemming from an incident of his distribution of pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. While our files here show no flirther [sic] assignments or contact, I am requesting an (xx) check on the subject from our New Orleans and Ft. Worth offices.

By the time of Kennedy’s assassination:

the Oswald subject was only (xxxx xx) in our employ … He was provided with a few unimportant infiltration assignments and proved of little or no value. It is possible that Oswald, given his instability, might have been involved in some operation involving [Teamsters head Jimmy] Hoffa, as noted in SAIC Bertram’s report to your agency dated 1/3/64. Mr. [J Edgar] Hoover advises that his agency [the FBI] is trying to determine whether Hoffa might have been involved laterally or vertically with the Dallas assassination I have advised that I would be interested in seeing the results of that investigation.

Yesterday’s post mentions that Hoffa was planning to travel to Puerto Rico for a trial involving the union there.

After the assassination, the organiser for Local 901 in Puerto Rico, Miguel Cruz said:

Now that we’ve taken care of President Kennedy, we’ll have no trouble in taking over things.

In his analysis, which follows the text of the memo, Walt Brown lays out all the reasons for and against the authenticity of this document.

Supporting the case ‘for’, Brown tells us the wording sounds agency-like: ‘subject Oswald’, ‘Dallas action’ (instead of ‘Kennedy assassination’):

So, it reads extremely accurately. I’d expand that thought and append, again using only logic and circumstance, and suggest that if someone wanted to make this up, “nobody is that good.” I’ve had the good fortune to meet some brilliant people who have dedicated decades of their lives to getting to the bottom of the “Dallas action,” and I truly believe that none of them — and I mean to clearly include myself in the noting of the inability — to be good enough to put together a document in this way. It touches on just enough — Hoffa, LHO going to the USSR (although the Minsk purpose is more ‘secret’ than the fact that Oswald was a CIA agent — were Russian radios that important, or did Oswald actually photograph Russian military installations?) — the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean, and the “Sweatt” information — unstated, but it was Deputy Sheriff Alan Sweatt who released the information that Oswald was a paid FBI informant, using the designation S-179.

I just can’t imagine even the most talented researcher/critic being able to put together something as clear and uncontrived as this document.

Supporting the case ‘against’, Brown points out that there are none of the characteristic agency markings on the document, e.g. an ‘X’, date stamps, initials. The fact that it is marked ‘Confidential’ instead of ‘Top Secret’ or in an agency-like way throws up another red flag. Also curious is that it is from the CIA to the Secret Service.

This could be a real memo or a fabricated one. Brown concludes:

“Is it real?” The question is a very valid one.

Perhaps something about this will emerge between now and April 2018.

Tomorrow’s post looks at an FBI memo stating that Oswald was not part of their team.

On Thursday, October 26, 2017, President Donald Trump authorised the release of approximately 2,800 documents concerning the assassination of John F Kennedy. These are available on the National Archives site.

Over 1,000 documents are pending review, being withheld for up to six months, as they are sensitive either to national security or persons who are still alive. The White House announcement stated (emphases mine):

The remaining records will be released with agency-proposed redactions on a rolling basis in the coming weeks. The President has demanded unprecedented transparency from the agencies and directed them to minimize redactions without delay. The National Archives will therefore release more records, with redactions only in the rarest of circumstances, by the deadline of April 26, 2018.

Many people have wondered if this was the right time. This date was mandated by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, signed into law on October 26, 1992, in the last few months of Bush I’s (George Herbert Walker Bush’s) presidency. Wikipedia tells us:

The Act requires that each assassination record be publicly disclosed in full and be made available in the collection no later than the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of the Act (which was October 26, 2017), unless the President of the United States certifies that: (1) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and (2) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

It is worth remembering that Bush I was CIA director under Ronald Reagan. He is probably the only person alive who knows what actually happened on November 22, 1963. It is ironic that the act passed under his administration, however, the year before — 1991 — Oliver Stone’s JFK was shown in cinemas around the world. It posited that the CIA and FBI conspired to assassinate Kennedy. The influence of Stone’s film was huge:

The final report of the Act’s Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) partially credited the conclusions in Oliver Stone‘s 1991 film JFK with the passage of the Act.[2]

The day the files were released, The Guardian published an article by Philip Shenon, a former Washington and foreign correspondent for the New York Times, who wrote A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination. Excerpts from ‘Files will shed light on a JFK shooting conspiracy – but not the one you think’ follow.

I was a young child when the assassination occurred. Unlike Bush I, who seems to be the only American who does not remember what he was doing when he heard the news, I recall exactly where I was. I also remember the cast of characters that poured out of the woodwork in the months that followed. My parents and their friends spent a lot of time talking about these people popping up in the news.

The Warren Commission did not clear anything up. This is why the conspiracy theory has persisted. We are now getting some answers, thanks to President Trump’s authorisation. As Philip Shenon notes:

The authors of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act said they were alarmed, in particular, by the cloud of suspicion kicked up by Stone’s film

Thanks to other files that the US government has declassified over the years, people discovered that a cover up started almost immediately:

The first act came on Sunday 24 November, the day [Jack] Ruby gunned down [Lee Harvey] Oswald at Dallas police headquarters, when an FBI agent in the bureau’s field office across town was ordered to destroy a threatening handwritten note that Oswald had hand-delivered to the office earlier that month – apparently a protest over the FBI’s aggressive surveillance of his family.

Shenon tells us what happened to the note:

the agent took the note into the men’s room, tore it into pieces and flushed it down the toilet. Years later, the agent admitted to congressional investigators that he and his supervisor had panicked at the thought that the note would been seen as proof that that the FBI had botched the opportunity to save the president’s life.

Details surrounding the assassination have tied people in knots for 54 years. But Shenon says those are nothing compared to:

the well-documented, proven conspiracy within the highest reaches of the US government – a criminal conspiracy from the start, involving the destruction of top-secret documents and photographs, the silencing of witnesses and whistleblowers, and the wholesale suborning of perjury – to cover up the truth about what the government had known in advance about Oswald and the clear threat he had posed to one man: President Kennedy.

The word “cover-up” is not hyperbole. Remarkably enough, it is the word that the CIA itself applies to what happened immediately after the assassination. In a once-classified internal report that became public in 2014, the spy agency’s in-house historian acknowledged that the CIA had engaged in a “cover-up” (albeit a “benign cover-up”, he insisted) to hide evidence from the Warren commission and later government investigations. The cover-up was intended to keep investigators focused exclusively on evidence that proved “what the Agency believed at the time was the ‘best truth’that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing Kennedy”.

Shenon looked into what the Warren Commission did:

I was saddened and surprised by a central conclusion that I reached by the end of my research: the Kennedy assassination did not have to happen. It could have been prevented – easily – if the CIA and FBI had just acted on the intelligence in their own files in November 1963. Yes, Oswald was a violent, delusional misfit. But he was not the pure “lone wolf” portrayed by the initial government accounts of the assassination – the image that the government was desperate to present after Kennedy’s murder, since it suggested nothing could have been done to stop him.

He tells us:

Both agencies had strong reason to believe that Oswald, a self-proclaimed Marxist who had years of rifle practice in the Marine Corps, would be a danger when Kennedy’s motorcade passed through Dallas on 22 November 1963.

Shenon’s position on Oswald and the shooting is more or less along government lines. He thinks that it was a ‘horrifying coincidence’ that Oswald just happened to be a rather new employee at the Texas School Book Depository.

Shenon says it is distressing that the agencies did not act on the information they had on Oswald. Yet, JFK said he wanted to break the CIA into ‘a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds’. My post the other day discussed other aspects of what was going on in Washington DC at the time, including the scandals surrounding Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was close to being indicted. JFK planned to drop him from his re-election ticket in 1964.

The KGB thought that LBJ was behind the assassination:

Unions did not seem too fond of JFK. One of the released documents is a communication dated November 26, 1963, concerning union officials in San Juan, Puerto Rico (full version here). It reads in part:

Ana Maria Del Valle, Secretary – Treasurer, HRWU, was approached by Miguel Cruz, Organizer for Local 901, Teamsters Union (TU), who made a statement “Now that we’ve taken care of President Kennedy, we’ll have no trouble in taking over things.”

… Details: at SJ, PR. Possible connection between Jack Ruby and Teamsters Union (TU).

An FBI memo from May 1963 states that a trial involving a union took place there. Jimmy Hoffa, head of the Teamsters at the time, was going to sit in and had made hotel reservations.

I will post more on the JFK files — past and present releases — this week.

Bible openThe three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy have omitted — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Acts 12:12-17

12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 Recognizing Peter’s voice, in her joy she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate. 15 They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” But she kept insisting that it was so, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 16 But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed. 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.”[a] Then he departed and went to another place.

—————————————————————————————–

Last week’s post discussed Peter’s dramatic escape from prison. An angel of the Lord appeared in his cell in the middle of the night before his trial, where he was chained to two of Herod Antipas’s guards — one on each side. The angel told Peter to wake up and stand. When he stood, his chains fell from him.

The broken chains were real. Matthew Henry mentions that a soldier kept them for many years as a religious relic. They were then given to an empress by the name of Eudoxia. Wikipedia says that the Venerable Bede, an early historian, wrote about them:

According to a letter quoted by Bede, Pope Vitalian sent a cross containing filings said to be from Peter’s chains to the queen of Oswy, Anglo-Saxon King of Northumbria in 665, as well as unspecified relics of the saint to the king.[103]

The angel then led Peter out of the prison, past the guards and out of the gate, which opened by itself. Once they turned a corner onto a street familiar to Peter, the angel vanished. Peter thought he was receiving a vision during this time until he realised that he was a free man.

He went to the house of a lady named Mary, the mother of John Mark, where people were praying for Peter’s safety and freedom (verse 12).

Mary was related to Barnabas. Barnabas was the Levite in Acts 4:36-37 who gave all of his assets to the church in Jerusalem. In Acts 9, he convinced the disciples in Jerusalem that they should accept the converted Saul of Tarsus, their greatest persecutor — later Paul — into their church.

John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. We will read more about him and Barnabas in Acts. They were cousins who spread the Gospel message together. Barnabas also worked with Paul. These are the references to John Mark and Barnabas.

Of Mary, John MacArthur tells us that she (emphases mine):

was wealthy. She had a maid, Rhoda, she had household servants, it was large enough to have prayer meetings and gatherings. Her son, whose surname was Mark, is the same Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark and he was a companion and buddy of Peter and got most of his information for the gospel of Mark from Peter. Of course, the Holy Spirit gave it to him, but it comes out of experiences that he had in the time of Peter. And so here’s the house of Mark. Incidentally it’s the same John Mark that accompanies Saul and Barnabas on the missionary journey at first and is finally sent home and later restored.

Matthew Henry surmised that there was a 24-hour prayer vigil at Mary’s house for Peter:

They were many that were got together for this work, as many perhaps as the room would hold; and first one prayed, and then another, of those who gave themselves to the word and prayer, the rest joining with them; or, if they had not ministers among them, no doubt but there were many private Christians that knew how to pray, and to pray pertinently, and to continue long in prayer when the affections of those who joined were so stirred as to keep pace with them upon such an occasion. This was in the night, when others were asleep, which was an instance both of their prudence and of their zeal. Note, It is good for Christians to have private meetings for prayer, especially in times of distress, and not to let fall nor forsake such assemblies.

Peter knocked at the gate, and Mary’s servant Rhoda went to answer (verse 13). MacArthur gives us the meaning of Rhoda:

The name means Rose.

Henry outlines the danger of a call in the middle of the night with Christians in jeopardy in Jerusalem:

A damsel came to hearken; not to open the door till she knew who was there, a friend or a foe, and what their business was, fearing informers.

He also thought that Rhoda was probably a Christian, as St Luke — the author of Acts — named her:

Whether this damsel was one of the family or one of the church, whether a servant or a daughter, does not appear; it should seem, by her being named, that she was of note among the Christians, and more zealously affected to the better part than most of her age.

She was so thrilled to hear Peter’s voice that, instead of opening the gateway door to him, she ran inside the house to tell everyone (verse 14).

Everyone told her she was out of her mind (verse 15). When she persisted, they said it was Peter’s angel, meaning his tutelary angel, a Jewish belief. MacArthur explains:

They believed that every Jew had an angel of his own, a guardian angel, and that angel could materialize in the form and the face of that person.

Henry points out that angelos was also frequently used to mean messenger. He adds that there was also a common belief that before someone died, a spirit in their likeness appeared presaging death.

Imagine Peter’s anxiety about having to wait while Rhoda and Mary’s household were discussing all of this. Peter was known throughout Jerusalem and was in grave danger should anyone see him in the street.

MacArthur points out the irony:

And what are they doing in there having an all night prayer meeting for Peter and she says your prayers are answered. He’s at the gate. And meanwhile Peter’s going, “Where did she go? Open the gate.” Standing in the middle of the road and she’s in there having a debate. And you know this is what’s so humorous here is because they’re so typically like the Christians today who pray with all the zeal in the world but none of the faith to believe. You know you hear a guy give his testimony and you know the Lord answered my prayer. Well shock! But anyway verse 15, “They said unto her, You’re crazy.” Now isn’t that unbelievable. Oh God get Peter out of Jail. Peter’s here! Oh you’re crazy. He’s in jail. I’m glad God answers the prayer of zeal as well as the prayer of faith. I think sometimes mine are mostly zeal and not always faith.

Finally, they opened the door of the gateway and let him in (verse 16). MacArthur points out:

“And when they had opened the door they saw him and they were astonished,” which shows you how much faith they really had.

As in, more zeal than faith.

Peter motioned with his hand for everyone to be quiet, that he wanted to stop by and tell them about the angel freeing him (verse 17). He specifically asked them to tell James — the Lord’s brother, the author of the letters of James in the New Testament — as well as the rest of the disciples. Then, Peter left.

Henry thought that Peter either went in to pray in thanksgiving with them before departing or he instructed them to do so while he left Jerusalem in great haste. He did not have much time.

Henry tells us Peter was wise to seek safety:

Note, Even the Christian law of self-denial and suffering for Christ has not abrogated and repealed the natural law of self-preservation, and care for our own safety, as far as God gives an opportunity of providing for it by lawful means.

MacArthur says:

We don’t know where he went, but wherever he went we know what he did just because the kind of person he was. He wound up stirring up trouble everywhere and wound up getting crucified upside down. But nevertheless he departed and went another place and that’s the fade out of Peter. Good-bye Peter, that’s him. Brief appearance in Chapter 15, but that’s all. He goes off.

I wrote about his letters to his flock in 1 Peter and 2 Peter. These are available near the bottom of my Essential Bible Verses page.

Early writings of the Church says that Peter and Paul — along with Peter’s wife — were martyred on the same day in Rome. Cruelly, the Romans forced Peter to watch his wife’s martyrdom. His last words to her were:

Remember the Lord.

If you missed reading about Peter’s ministry when I originally posted the following, you might enjoy these entries:

John MacArthur on St Peter

John MacArthur on Peter’s leadership qualities

More from John MacArthur on Peter’s leadership journey

Next time — Acts 12:18-19

To date, no evidence exists of President Donald Trump’s notional collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

Earlier this week, Trump tweeted:

He was referring to the spurious dossier on his alleged activities in Russia, which emerged in January before his inauguration.

One year ago, Hillary wished herself a happy birthday:

(Be sure to read the comments to that tweet: both Hillary and the Bush family shut down investigations into paedophilia. You will also discover why Chelsea doesn’t go to church.)

This year, Julian Assange retweeted the birthday greeting.

2015: Dems’ Pied Piper plan

Hillary was certain she would win. This is because the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had a campaign plan involving what they called Pied Piper Candidates from the Republican Party.

The plan was revealed in the Podesta emails that WikiLeaks dumped last year. The email number is 1120 and it is dated April 23, 2015. The email came from someone on Hillary’s campaign team:

Below please find the agenda for tomorrow morning’s 8:00 AM ET Strategy Call.

There is a memo for the DNC discussion attached to this email for your review ahead of the call.

AGENDA:

1. Clinton Cash update

2. DNC plan (see attached memo)

3. Phones / Pool plan

Thank you!

The Daily Caller has a link to the memo (PDF).

This is what it says about Pied Piper Candidates:

2016: Paul Manafort, Trump campaign manager

When Trump was the last man standing during the Republican primary season early in May 2016, he still needed to ensure he got delegates at the party’s convention in July.

In order to get the delegates, he appointed a new campaign manager in June: Paul Manafort. Manafort is a political consultant — a ‘fixer’ — as well as a lawyer and lobbyist. He has had clients in the United States and internationally. He has worked on several GOP presidential campaigns, dating back to the 1970s with Gerald Ford.

A few weeks after Manafort completed his work in securing the necessary number of Republican delegates for Trump — an arduous task, by the way — news emerged about work he had done in Ukraine. Thinking it would cast a shadow on Trump’s campaign, Manafort resigned. Kellyanne Conway replaced him.

This year, Manafort has been one of the people investigated by Robert Mueller and his team for Russian collusion. From Wikipedia (emphases mine):

On January 19, 2017, the eve of the Trump’s presidential inauguration, it was reported that Manafort was under active investigation by multiple federal agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Director of National Intelligence and the financial crimes unit of the Treasury Department.[85] Investigations were said to be based on intercepted Russian communications as well as financial transactions.[86] It was later confirmed that Manafort was wiretapped by the FBI “before and after the [2016] election … including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.” The surveillance of Manafort began in 2014, before Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of United States.[87]

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed on May 17, 2017 by the Justice Department to oversee the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters, took over the existing criminal probe involving Manafort.[84][9][88] On July 26, 2017, the day after Manafort’s United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing and the morning of his planned hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, FBI agents at Mueller’s direction conducted a “no-knock” pre-dawn raid on Manafort’s Alexandria, Virginia home, using a search warrant to seize documents and other materials, in regards to the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.[89][90] Manafort has reportedly been told by Mueller’s office prosecutors that they plan to indict him.[91]

The pre-dawn FBI raid was particularly vicious. I heard on a talk show from someone close to Manafort that his wife was scared witless, and that’s putting it mildly.

Manafort has also had to appear before two Senate committees:

In May 2017, in response to a request of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), Manafort submitted over “300 pages of documents…included drafts of speeches, calendars and notes from his time on the campaign” to the Committee “related to its investigation of Russian election meddling”.[92] On July 25 he met privately with the committee.[93]

A congressional hearing on Russia issues, including the Trump campaign-Russian meeting, was scheduled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for July 26, 2017. Manafort was scheduled to appear together with Trump Jr., while Kushner was to testify in a separate closed session.[94] After separate negotiations, both Manafort and Trump Jr. met with the committee on July 26 in closed session and agreed to turn over requested documents. They are expected to testify in public eventually.[95]

Personally, I do not think Manafort has done anything wrong in connection with Trump or his campaign.

The Podesta brothers, Russia and Manafort

If you were one of my readers last year, you probably remember my mentions of John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign supremo. The Daily Caller reported in November 2016 that he wrote the memo which included the Pied Piper Candidate strategy.

John’s brother is Tony.

The two founded the Podesta Group in 1988. It went by different names until 2007, when the firm adopted its current name. The company does a lot of work in politics as well as the corporate arena, both in the US and elsewhere in the world.

Now it looks as if Paul Manafort worked for the Podesta Group a few years ago.

Wikipedia tells us:

As of October 2017, the Podesta Group is under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for potentially violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in the course of its work for the ECMU. The Podesta Group was one of six lobbying firms that participated in a 2012–2014 public relations campaign organized by former Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 chairman Paul Manafort on behalf of the ECMU and Ukraine’s pro-Russia Party of Regions; the campaign was designed to improve Ukraine’s standing among Western audiences as a possible prelude to Ukrainian membership in the European Union (EU). A Podesta Group spokesman denied any wrongdoing.[14]

More about this below.

One wonders whether Manafort conveniently happened to work for Trump so that he would become the Pied Piper Candidate. Manafort could then resign, having done his bit for the Democrats.

It is too early to say either way.

———————————————–

On Tuesday, October 24, two big stories about Russian collusion broke. Both involve Democrats.

Tucker Carlson Tonight: Podesta Group’s ties to Russia

Fox’s Tucker Carlson Tonight team received a call from an anonymous source who said he had information about the Podesta Group, Manafort, the Clintons and Russia.

The man went to see Carlson to give him the story. Carlson’s staff fact checked names and dates. The first video talks about him and the second video features Bret Hume’s analysis to Carlson:

The Daily Caller has a summary of what Carlson discovered. Excerpts follow:

Carlson said in his opening segment that, according to a source Mueller is looking into the Podesta Group, a lobbying firm with close ties to Hillary Clinton, over spreading Russian influence in the United States during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Carlson said, “The central effort to extend Russian influence was focused on the executive branch, the Obama administration. The vehicle through which [Paul] Manafort worked for the Russians was a shell group called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The group was supposedly based in Belgium but had no offices there. It had only two employees, both based in Ukraine.

Their telephone number in Brussels rang in Kiev. It was a sham, yet it had a presence in Washington. The European Centre for a Modern Ukraine was a major client of the Podesta Group. Why did the Russians choose the Podesta Group? Because both Podestas were close to the Clintons, and Hillary was then Secretary of State. She could get things done for the Podestas’ Russian clients. It was influence peddling, the most obvious kind,” he continued.

Carlson is the co-founder of The Daily Caller, by the way. Further to the story:

The Daily Caller co-founder added, “At one point, in either 2013 or early 2014, our source says a meeting was held that included both Tony Podesta and a representative of the Clinton Foundation. The explicit subject of that meeting: How to assist Uranium One, the Russian-owned company which controls 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity, and whose board members gave more than $100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. As our source put it, ‘Tony Podesta was basically part of the Clinton Foundation.’

According to Carlson, Manafort was in on the scheme.

“According to our source, Manafort was clear that Russia wanted to cultivate ties to Hillary Clinton, in the belief she was likely to become president,” he said during the segment. “These links to Hillary were apparently valuable; our source believes that the Russian money Manafort funneled to the Podesta Group greatly exceeds the roughly $1 million they were officially paid. Some of these payments, he said, could be hidden kickbacks that would be hard to trace. He described the Podesta Group’s books as a ‘treasure trove’ and highly secret. He told us the Podesta Group had no board, and all financial decisions were personally made by Tony Podesta. The Group’s employees, he said, included a person whose only official job was managing Tony Podesta’s art collection. It would be easy for such an organization to conceal financial transactions.”

Tucker was deeply unhappy that the media had not reported on this.

I think they all knew, but nearly everyone in media is a Hillary supporter, anyway. It’s much better from their perspective to rubbish Trump every day with false accusations and fake news.

Hume said that this is much bigger than Watergate and has far greater implications.

Carlson said he would continue reporting on it as he receives further information.

Washington Post: DNC paid for dossier

Returning to the aforementioned spurious dossier released in January, the Washington Post published an article, ‘Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier’.

An excerpt follows:

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

We don’t yet know who the Republican was. UPDATE 27/10: The Republican appears to be the billionaire financing the Washington Free Beacon.

The story went viral among Trump supporters:

Bret Baier of Fox News covered it:

This was Trump’s reaction:

The former Republican governor of Arkansas — and father of Trump’s press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders — tweeted:

This brings us back to Uranium One, about which I wrote in the final weeks of the campaign. That post also includes information on Podesta and Clinton dealings with Russia.

Yes, indeed.

This tweet has a lengthy scenario of what has occurred and what might unfold. Click on the tweet to see all 61 points, many of which follow:

2. Two main narratives seem to be emerging, both disastrous for Obama or Clinton.

3. Narrative #1 – illegal spying on US citizens, FISA & the Steele Dossier.

4. Narrative #2 – giving Putin access to the US uranium market for cash, via Uranium One.

5. The two narratives may be linked by recent revelations concerning U1, but let’s consider them apart for the moment.

6. Make no mistake, what’s unfolding on both counts is unprecedented for America. And I suspect we still don’t know the half of it.

14. ‘The Steele Dossier’ now appears to be a DNC/Clinton funded operation that they also ‘loaned’ to Obama & his people. A conspiracy.

15. It was a failure for the Clinton Gang. The aim was using it to use it BEFORE the election, but no one was willing to publish it.

16. We now seem to have the DNC, Bush, Clinton campaign & the Clinton Foundation paying for it. Possibly even Comey’s FBI. And others – TBD.

17. When it failed, I think it was EITHER made available to Obama or CLinton & Obama decided to use it – for illegal spying.

18. It formed the basis of the 2nd FISA request on October 15, 2016. That led to Trump’s wiretapping allegations.

19. Obama and/or Clinton then decided to use the dossier to try and destroy Trump AFTER he was elected, by persuading BuzzFeed to publish.

20. Jan 11 was the date, clearly targeted at preventing the inauguration. It was an act of desperation – and failed.

21. I’m not sure that many people realize just how serious this is – and may become.

22. Apart from the multiple felonies involved, check US Code 2384 & 2385, for starters.

23. US Code 2384 – seditious conspiracy. 2385 – advocating overthrow of government.

24. No one should be in doubt. Trump IS the type to consider them both. He thinks BIG and means to drain the swamp.

Hillary was Secretary of State when Uranium One got past the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — CFIUS in October 2010. She was also in charge of the Russian ‘reset’ since March 2009. (27)

Therefore, it is implausible that she was unaware of the impact of Uranium One, what Putin’s objectives were, particularly with a company called Tenam (28), which the FBI were watching as the firm’s operations expanded (29).

30. We know that Robert Mueller was ordered by HRC to deliver 10 grams of HEU to Russia in August 2009.

31. The official line is that the HEU was seized in Georgia (East Europe) in 2006 in a joint Georgia/CIA sting of a uranium smuggling gang.

32. I’ve always thought the story to be total BS. It’s as implausible as the Steele Dossier. You know what I think?

33. It was AMERICAN HEU. But anyway, I digress. American or not, it shows that Clinton KNEW that uranium was a national security asset.

34. Therefore, her failure at any time to oppose the deal at CFIUS – knowing what she knewis more than suspicious. It’s CRIMINAL.

35. Not only that, it is extremely difficult to believe that she was unaware of the MILLIONS flowing into the CF as all this was going on.

36. She ALSO failed to disclose these ‘donations’, in a clear breach of an agreement she made with POTUS Obama in 2008.

44. As more is revealed, the truly dangerous waters that the Clintons have led America into become clearer.

45. Because of them, Putin may well be selling US uranium (illegally) to Iran and NK. Or using it to bolster his own nuke arsenal.

46. THAT’S how serious this could be. Even that fact that the deal gave him leverage within the US energy market is astonishing.

47. Again, apart from.the many crimes committed here, Trump needs to at least consider US Code 2381 & 2382.

48. 2381 – Treason. 2382 – Misprision of Treason (concealment).

It is possible that Obama wanted to cover up Putin’s partial control over the uranium supply chain (51), causing him to make some strange decisions with regard to Russia (52). Then, along came the persistent accusation that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016.

56. The Russians DID interfere, as they always have. BUT Obama knew full well that the Trump-Russia smear was garbage.

60. ‘I’ll have more flexibility after the election’ [2012]

61. You only say this if you’ve agreed to do something but can’t deliver. And a POTUS saying this, to a Putin lackey? Totally BIZARRE.

In 2016, Hillary was furious with the DNC’s Donna Brazile after the Clinton-Trump Commander-in-Chief Forum hosted by NBC’s Matt Lauer. What she said is too foul to post, but this is part of it:

If [Trump] wins, we all hang from nooses!

More to come as news emerges. As Trump would say, ‘This is YUGE!’

In the meantime, please pray earnestly for President Trump’s safety. Also on October 24, a man embedded himself in the press pool at the Capitol building to throw Russian flags at the president, yelling, ‘Trump is treason!’ He was in close proximity to him. Scary. Where were the Secret Service agents?

A fortnight after the Mandalay Bay massacre took place, a video appeared on YouTube concerning a 1962 Deep State false flag proposal known as Operation Northwoods:

Wikipedia introduces it as follows (bold emphasis in the original, emphases in purple mine):

Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The plans detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[2] The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[3]

At the time of the proposal, communists led by Fidel Castro had recently taken power in Cuba. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[4] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government.

The probable behind-the-scenes goal of the Mandalay Bay massacre was to create legislation for nationwide gun control. Another probable goal was to increase surveillance — e.g. the number of airport-style scanners — around the nation in places that do not currently have them. Manufacturers of various types of scanning equipment stood to make millions of dollars.

Because we have so few facts about what happened at Mandalay Bay — and other hotels — the video about Operation Northwoods provides an example of possible contrivance, especially if Deep State were involved.

The couple who present the video go through the declassified document page by page. It is worth viewing.

We learn that Northwoods would have been a highly planned and staged sequence of events (8:43, 8:45, 8:52):

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over the fence” to stage attack on base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.

(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.

(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires — napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock victims (may be in lieu of (10)).

Also (10:20):

3. A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both …

And (13:14):

The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be highly publicised. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful …

A fake civilian airplane attack was also envisaged (16:33, 17:01):

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela …

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone …

The video shows the pages from the document detailing exactly how this would work.

All of this was designed to manipulate public opinion.

The people who put this document together did not care about human life.

The video also shows footage of the aftermath of other horrific incidents, including the neat stack of passports found after 9/11. I, too, have often wondered how those passports looked so pristine, given the circumstances. Hmm.

In any event, keep Operation Northwoods in mind when horrific incidents occur.

This week, citizen journalists returned to Las Vegas to comb the city for more evidence and information connected to the devastating events of Sunday, October 1. If anything substantial develops, I will write about it.

This week, President Donald Trump is due to open files to the public regarding the John F Kennedy assassination on November 22, 1963:

The ‘further information’ in that sentence refers to any information that might jeopardise America’s national security or have an adverse impact on someone who is still alive, in which case secrecy would override public disclosure.

Recently, I saw an excellent — and short — video wherein Dick Morris, now a Republican but formerly an advisor to Bill Clinton, explains the political context of the JFK assassination. I did not know some of the details Morris discusses below:

Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) — serving as vice president at the time — was being investigated for having bribed senators during his time as Senate majority leader and for shady business deals in Texas involving oilmen as well as television and radio station licences in the Austin market.

The Senate had been investigating both scandals and was ready to indict Johnson. It is likely he would have gone to prison.

Had JFK not been shot, Time magazine had planned a cover story for that week with the vice president’s picture and the caption ‘Johnson in Trouble’.

JFK’s personal secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, said later that the president was planning to drop Johnson for the 1964 presidential election. Johnson, no doubt, already knew that while the Senate was investigating him.

Was Johnson somehow involved behind the scenes? Morris, who has read a great deal on the subject, says that LBJ had close organised crime — mob — connections in Dallas and New Orleans. He also had good relationships with the police in those cities. Therefore, the possibility of collusion exists.

Morris says the assassination could have been one of the earliest and most ‘virulent’ manifestations of the Deep State.

In his presidential farewell address in January 1961, Dwight D Eisenhower warned the American public that the military industrial complex could get out of control. I wrote about it earlier this year. Eisenhower spoke of the:

unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex …

The Deep State did not like JFK. He was starting to roll back their influence, particularly in the Cold War. He signed a nuclear test-ban treaty with Russia and wanted rapprochement. Had he lived to run for re-election, one of his campaign positions was pulling out of Vietnam.

LBJ was much more amenable to Deep State objectives.

After the assassination, LBJ set up the Warren Commission, which was supposed to find and reveal the truth behind it. Unfortunately, that did not happen. The commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Yet, there were likely to have been multiple shooters that day, possibly three, perhaps four.

Morris posits that the output of the Warren Commission was probably driven by the CIA and FBI. If the truth had come out, Morris says, there might have been severe public unrest in the United States, maybe even a revolution.

So, all being well, we should find out more about the assassination on Thursday, October 26, 2017.

I pray that the American people get closure on this subject. I hope the information is readable with minimal redactions.

Yesterday, I wrote about the latest Project Veritas video in the American Pravda series wherein a longtime IT consultant for the New York Times discusses the paper’s rampant Trump Derangement Syndrome.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the NYT put out a lot of fake news about then candidate Donald Trump, including this gem from one year ago:

The information can be verified on the NYT‘s presidential election polling page.

Regular readers of the paper are aware that their journalists continue to publish fake news about President Donald Trump on a daily basis.

Not surprisingly, Trump is furious with news media but happy with public reaction:

Another prime purveyor of fake news is CNN.

Yesterday, they launched an advertising campaign to redeem themselves. This is not a very good ad …

… especially since it was lampooned hours later:

Looking back to 2016, what follows are a few CNN whoppers. The Conservative Treehouse has more. I have borrowed some of theirs (TheLastRefuge).

During primary season, CNN’s Jake Tapper denied the network used a polling organisation called PPP. Yet, one of their articles cites PPP:

They were economical with the truth when it came to Trump’s campaign speeches:

As the presidential campaign ramped up in the autumn, attention turned to Hillary Clinton.

Brooke Baldwin, a CNN presenter had a hard time believing Hillary’s staff destroyed several mobile devices with hammers. Her request for a fact check backfired hilariously:

When WikiLeaks began releasing the Podesta emails weeks before the election in November, CNN’s Chris Cuomo told viewers that it was illegal for Americans to view the emails. Only media had permission:

After the election, CNN began participating in the Russian collusion narrative. Note the disconnect between the headline and the story itself:

CNN are still lying. I have a load of CNN fake news links, but those will have to wait for another day.

Further confirming the Trump Derangement Syndrome at the New York Times as featured in yesterday’s post, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released Part IV in their American Pravda video series on October 19, 2017.

This video features an interview with an IT consultant for the paper. Todd Gordon has worked for the NYT for 20 years. He describes the Trump Derangement Syndrome running rampant there:

Project Veritas also published a summary of the interview, excerpted below.

How can one trust a paper where everyone despises the president of the United States?

PV Journalist: “Have you ever had anybody in New York Times’ office come up to you and say, I actually enjoy Trump?”

Todd Gordon: “No, no, no.”

PV Journalist: “Really?”

Todd Gordon: “Not one person.”

PV Journalist: “Not one person?”

Todd Gordon: “Not one, not one. Everyone hates him. They hate him like the plague, dude.”

The NYT has a set of ethical guidelines purporting to promote political impartiality, yet:

Gordon says that without a voice of dissent, it is impossible for the Times to be impartial towards Trump, “They unfairly, yes. I agree 100 percent. They unfairly report on him.” He continues:

PV Journalist: “How can they report…”

Todd Gordon: “They can’t.”

PV Journalist: “Without being biased, right?”

Todd Gordon: “You’re right, 100%. 100%.”

Gordon adds that one NYT employee was so angered by Trump’s 2016 victory that he left the paper to move to Canada!

Be suspicious when you next read a NYT article accusing Trump of colluding with Russia. Gordon says:

… hearsay, it’s all hearsay. And they’re like grab that hearsay and let’s put it out there.

James O’Keefe says more videos are on the way.

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas team released a third American Pravda video on the New York Times on October 17, 2017.

You can see previous videos by clicking the American Pravda link above.

The third video features an interview with Desiree Shoe, senior home page editor. She’s an American who works in London. The interviewers are British. Considering that she is married, she’s a bit flirty with them (plays with her hair a lot). Must be the accents.

That aside, there is much Trump Derangement Syndrome:

If you don’t want to watch the 13-minute video, Project Veritas have a summary of the interview and Shoe’s quotes. Excerpts follow.

We discover that Trump is good for getting new subscribers to the paper. The NYT have labelled this phenomenon the ‘Trump bump’:

The New York Times senior homepage editor goes on to explain the positive effect of Trump’s victory: “Since the election, like you know…Speaking on, you know, for The New York Times, our subscriptions have sky-rocketed since…I mean, they call it the Trump bump.”

When asked if the NYT is turning itself into a ‘click paper’, she responds:

I mean, you’re not wrong. Like, I would love to be able to speak my mind completely about…If I ever leave the Times I’ll go back to you guys and tell you exactly what I think. But, I mean, there’s stuff like…And this is what I was trying to say is like the last couple years it’s changed for the bad.

Shoe admits that the paper does lean leftward:

The New York Times is not…I mean, it’s widely understood to be liberal-leaning. But, American newspapers are not supposed to claim a bias, they’re supposed to be objective.

That sounds reasonable, but clearly, she is adamantly against President Donald Trump:

I feel like Trump is…is just a…is sort of an idiot in a lot of ways. Just an oblivious idiot.

Going back to 2016:

I think one of the things that maybe journalists were thinking about is like…Oh, if we write about him, about how insanely crazy he is and how ludicrous his policies are, then maybe people will read it and be like, oh wow, we shouldn’t vote for him.

That said, Shoe opposes impeachment because she really loathes Mike Pence:

If you impeach him, then Pence becomes President, Mike Pence, who’s f***ing horrible…I think maybe, possibly worse than Trump.

He’s extremely, extremely religious. He [Pence] at one point backed a bill that hinted at conversion therapy for gay people…Which is like electrocution, stuff like that.

(Sigh.)

After the video came out, Shoe quickly protected her Twitter account. Someone created an archive.

Shoe has worked for the NYT since 2009. To date, there has been no fallout from this video. However, it is interesting to see, once again, that the paper’s ethical guidelines on impartiality are being violated.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,658,369 hits