Speaker 1: Get ready for.
Speaker 2: Twenty sixth day of March twenty twenty five. Allegedly, according
Speaker 2: to that thing we call a calendar, this is the
Speaker 2: show you were looking for.
Speaker 3: How do I know that? Because you found it? Anyway?
Speaker 2: By the bye, it has now been a little while
Speaker 2: since we got the transcript function working over on spreakers.
Speaker 2: So every podcast, believe it or not, is in written
Speaker 2: form over there now via the transcript. It's automatic, it's AI.
Speaker 2: It's actually done a fairly good job. I've monitored it,
Speaker 2: so I'm not going to complain. And for those of
Speaker 2: you have asked for transcripts, the transcript can be read
Speaker 2: along with the podcast or an whole afterwards. So just
Speaker 2: telling you if you're downloading this, especially from the speaker feed,
Speaker 2: transcripts are available. And we were asked about that several
Speaker 2: times over the years.
Speaker 3: Well there it is.
Speaker 2: That's what it was. What am I talking about tonight?
Speaker 2: How about this the JFK assassination? The new files? Well
Speaker 2: are they new? There's the big question right there. See
Speaker 2: everybody says they're all new. What happened the big document
Speaker 2: dump of twenty twenty five. I hate to put it
Speaker 2: that way, especially because it sounds like I'm automatically insulting
Speaker 2: the Trump administration, but I'm not. A document dump is
Speaker 2: a common phrase for me. But I got two other
Speaker 2: people that you're gonna hear from tonight, and they're gonna
Speaker 2: give you some other information. And I'm still working on
Speaker 2: trying to read these things through. And I bet you
Speaker 2: both of these guys are still stuck in the middle
Speaker 2: of it, even though you know they're not necessarily stuck,
Speaker 2: but they're taking their time doing their thing. I know
Speaker 2: they have to be, cause I can't catch up this
Speaker 2: quick now. Jeff Morley from JFK FAX has been out
Speaker 2: there on a media tour, and admittedly I would tell
Speaker 2: you to go check out what he has to say,
Speaker 2: But is there more to be said?
Speaker 3: And who do I have with me?
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock, the author of various books, But I'll point
Speaker 2: you to directly the Oswald Puzzle, which has gotten mentioned,
Speaker 2: by the way, during this discussion of the new documents,
Speaker 2: and how interesting it is that Larry's book on Oswald
Speaker 2: fits perfectly with perspective is not blown up and useless
Speaker 2: immediately when new documents come out, And indeed there were
Speaker 2: some new things about Lee Army Oswald but guess what,
Speaker 2: Larry's book still solid even with the new documentation, and
Speaker 2: I highly recommend it. In fact, I wrote a review
Speaker 2: for it on BookBub. Anyway, maybe i'll give you a
Speaker 2: link to that in the show notes, along with a
Speaker 2: way to go get that book. And also the author
Speaker 2: of the War State, and gee, I might have more
Speaker 2: relevant things to talk current events with Mike Swanson later,
Speaker 2: but we're talking JFK documents tonight. The author of the
Speaker 2: War State, Why the Vietnam War? Also hell of a guy,
Speaker 2: and the proprietor the guy at Wall Street Window dot
Speaker 2: com and still putting out a hell.
Speaker 3: Of a newsletter over there.
Speaker 2: Oh, by the way, Larrydashancock dot com, Larry Hyphenhancock dot com.
Speaker 2: That's where you can catch up on Larry Hancock's blog.
Speaker 2: And you know, I recommend you let him take up
Speaker 2: as much space as he does on my bookshelf, because
Speaker 2: I recommend all of his written works. But anyway, that
Speaker 2: all out of the way, let's get to JFK. But
Speaker 2: first let me ask how everybody's doing.
Speaker 4: Mike.
Speaker 3: How you doing tonight, sir?
Speaker 4: Doing good?
Speaker 5: Great to talk to you, and it's always great to
Speaker 5: be talking with you. And Larry, that's a special treat.
Speaker 2: Look, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to I'm always
Speaker 2: happy to be the dumbest guy in the room, So
Speaker 2: it's great. Mike is an excellent author for making things
Speaker 2: sound simple even when they're complex. I love that because
Speaker 2: I'm the simpleton here. But I love this, and hopefully
Speaker 2: actually Mike and Ile both converge. Maybe a JFK lancer
Speaker 2: this year, and if we can recruit Larry, we're going
Speaker 2: to try and at least keep him running the Facebook interactions.
Speaker 2: And I want to talk him into doing a presentation
Speaker 2: over there, but we'll get to that later. Maybe he'll
Speaker 2: do it virtually. Maybe he'll do it with David Boylen
Speaker 2: in person. See David's the co author of the oswal puzzle.
Speaker 2: And last year they did a half and half where
Speaker 2: you had half a live presentation and Larry on the
Speaker 2: horn there or on the.
Speaker 3: Zoom or whatever.
Speaker 2: Who knows, maybe there will be something called the horn
Speaker 2: by then, as long as we don't use signal and
Speaker 2: try to share bombing plans.
Speaker 3: Did I say that out loud? Larry?
Speaker 2: It is good to have you, and absolutely looking forward
Speaker 2: to what you have to say, But anyway, enough out
Speaker 2: of me.
Speaker 3: How you doing tonight, sir.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm good. It's starting to be spring here. I'm
Speaker 1: doing some outside work and join it. And I'm glad
Speaker 1: to be on with both you and Mike because the
Speaker 1: way the discussion of going of the releases, it's like
Speaker 1: two or three people are required just to deal with it.
Speaker 2: Well, look, it's a large volume of stuff, and like
Speaker 2: I said, Morley is tackling it over at JFK FAX
Speaker 2: with a team of people, and there have been teams
Speaker 2: of people. Mary Ferrell involved, some you know, other independent groups.
Speaker 2: Everybody's trying to tackle all this stuff and see what
Speaker 2: it is we can learn from a significant release. I
Speaker 2: think we can all agree that it is a significant
Speaker 2: number of pages, but you know, what is the significance
Speaker 2: of the information. Of course, I'm not going to sit
Speaker 2: here and do what everybody else does and go, what's
Speaker 2: the smoking gun, Larry?
Speaker 3: What did we learn? Who did it? I'm not doing
Speaker 3: that to you, or to Mike or to myself.
Speaker 5: Let me ask Mia, yo, something did you? Morley had
Speaker 5: a webinar last week. I think that the very next
Speaker 5: day after the files were released, and seventy five percent
Speaker 5: of it was him giving a layout of some of
Speaker 5: the information teas researched about Angleton. But the beginning of
Speaker 5: it had this Representative Anna Luna who's going to be
Speaker 5: running congressional hearing about the release and the Kennedy assassination
Speaker 5: too next week. I think it's it's on April the first.
Speaker 5: I guess it's going to be a one day hearing.
Speaker 5: But did y'all catch that webinar at all?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 2: I was there for the most of it, Larry, you
Speaker 2: were there too, right, Yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Was on the webinar and I have been. I think
Speaker 1: I've chatted with jeff almost every day, including you know,
Speaker 1: about what information is going to Luna, because it's it's
Speaker 1: pretty clear, it's clearly pretty clear at this point in
Speaker 1: time that our only chance of getting outside the box,
Speaker 1: as it were, in other words, outside the box of
Speaker 1: the JFK files, right is to get someone to start
Speaker 1: beating the drum for collecting in other places, because now
Speaker 1: we've got what's in the box. But what's in the
Speaker 1: box is not all there is to get to see.
Speaker 2: There you go, do we have all of it? And
Speaker 2: Representative Luna's there, now, let's be fair. Jefferson Morley is gonna,
Speaker 2: you know, testify on the first of April, even though
Speaker 2: Luna made the joke and said she was trying to
Speaker 2: move it to the second so nobody would take it
Speaker 2: as an April fool's joke.
Speaker 3: While she was there, she said that, and it.
Speaker 2: Was good to see at least official cooperation with the
Speaker 2: community a little bit.
Speaker 3: But I don't know how I feel about it entirely.
Speaker 3: Is this going to be just.
Speaker 2: A political creatures act that goes on here? Is this
Speaker 2: going to be just for the show and to try
Speaker 2: and you know, capture a couple of headlines and get
Speaker 2: some positive responses from the public.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I've got my suspicions always when somebody from inside wants
Speaker 2: to work with those of us on the outside.
Speaker 5: But yeah, one thing I want to talk about in
Speaker 5: this talk with both of y'all.
Speaker 4: So, I mean, it's.
Speaker 5: One hand, you know, it's interesting, how I mean, if
Speaker 5: what appears to have taken place, it's kind of interesting
Speaker 5: with with the way the files were released from there's
Speaker 5: associate press story the day anyway, Trump gave an appearance
Speaker 5: at the KENNEYA Center and made a statement that there's
Speaker 5: something like eighty thousand files and they're all going out tomorrow.
Speaker 4: And then we all waited.
Speaker 5: To see what was going to happen, and they came
Speaker 5: out at seven o'clock. I think it was as Morley
Speaker 5: was doing his webinar. Actually over an hour afterwards.
Speaker 3: For clarity, I tracked this mike.
Speaker 2: It started coming out around seven pm Eastern and continued
Speaker 2: to come out, you know, for up until about eleven pm.
Speaker 2: And then there were additional releases added later. But and
Speaker 2: maybe some stuff was cleaned up, you know, maybe some
Speaker 2: stuff didn't go through entirely. Whatever, But this was a
Speaker 2: process that started at seven pm.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: There was associated press story along with this before the
Speaker 5: webinar started, and it said basically that Trump told the
Speaker 5: agencies through Tulsa Gabbard, they have to release these files
Speaker 5: and they had a new deadline to do it. They
Speaker 5: told him this the day before, and the Justice Department
Speaker 5: had a couple hundred lawyers, maybe more than that, a
Speaker 5: whole bunch of lawyers. Each one had to look through
Speaker 5: something like, according to the story, five hundred files of
Speaker 5: peace and make sure there are new legal issues. And
Speaker 5: obviously Trump wanted know or as few reaction as possible
Speaker 5: and that's what we got.
Speaker 4: But it was.
Speaker 5: What I think happened was, you know, the first time around,
Speaker 5: when Trump was president twenty seventeen, he said he going
Speaker 5: to release all the files, and we were, you know,
Speaker 5: we it didn't happen, you know, and he put that
Speaker 5: statement on Twitter, all the files coming out. They didn't
Speaker 5: come out, and he looked, you know, disingenuous. And then
Speaker 5: the stories were that Mike Pimpeo, who is the CI director,
Speaker 5: told him, you know, uh to hold off and and
Speaker 5: and uh and and then and so it didn't happen.
Speaker 5: And of course Biden didn't do it either. Oh to
Speaker 5: get it every.
Speaker 4: Single little detail, just to make it simple. Let me,
Speaker 4: let me got negative.
Speaker 5: You know, Trump got some negative uh social media stuff
Speaker 5: out of this. Uh Tucker calls and criticize him.
Speaker 4: The judge now, Briano.
Speaker 2: Yeh, look, there's a lot. And then.
Speaker 4: When Trump gets in office, there was gonna be this.
Speaker 5: I don't I'm not someone who pays attention this Epstein stuff,
Speaker 5: but I had.
Speaker 4: I called them.
Speaker 5: They call themselves people I know Trump fans like, that's what.
Speaker 4: They call themselves.
Speaker 5: And they were excited about the idea of Epstein releases
Speaker 5: and the Attorney General, you know, was going to release
Speaker 5: this Epstein stuff and that turned into a dud and
Speaker 5: they got a lot of blowback on social media. So
Speaker 5: I think all this negative blowback actually came to our
Speaker 5: benefit this time, those of us interested in the Kenny case,
Speaker 5: because we got I think more than we expected we're
Speaker 5: going to get.
Speaker 3: Well, there's there's questions.
Speaker 4: Ag.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a yes and note of that, because look,
Speaker 2: in twenty seventeen, Trump released a few things as per
Speaker 2: what was supposed to be released. You know, after the
Speaker 2: twenty five year waiting period from the arr B, he
Speaker 2: released some stuff, but not all of it, and in fact,
Speaker 2: withheld the majority of it still even after the twenty
Speaker 2: five year time period. Now that is not the totality
Speaker 2: of the records that are being but that's just the
Speaker 2: stuff from the nineteen nineties that was we were waiting
Speaker 2: on for twenty seventeen. He basically, i know, pretty much
Speaker 2: summaried this up, summarized this. Excuse me, some reaed this up.
Speaker 2: While summarized this by saying, you know, Trump kicked the
Speaker 2: can down the road, gave them more time. Biden tried
Speaker 2: to take the can off the road, and basically gave
Speaker 2: him an unlimited amount of time to continue to withhold,
Speaker 2: even though he dropped a few documents again a few
Speaker 2: years later. Now, because of all this and a lawsuit
Speaker 2: from the Mary Paraoll Foundation and other pressures, there has
Speaker 2: been political pressure here and it has probably worked to
Speaker 2: our advantage a little bit as far as getting some
Speaker 2: sort of transparency. But this political game is not really
Speaker 2: what I think people should be interested in, even though
Speaker 2: they are. The truth is what are we getting and
Speaker 2: what did we get in comparison to what we expected
Speaker 2: to get before. And there was also this announcement of
Speaker 2: these additional FBI documents. I don't believe we have seen
Speaker 2: those as of yet, but then again, we have seen
Speaker 2: more than we've seen before. And it's not like there's
Speaker 2: no reactions on these documents either. There are still reactions
Speaker 2: in many places, and we're doing comparisons on these things,
Speaker 2: but this is not a process that can be done
Speaker 2: right away. In the meantime, the media, general media went
Speaker 2: out and made all sorts of declarations. I mean, within
Speaker 2: minutes of these documents being you know, uploaded, they were
Speaker 2: uploading their news stories and telling us exactly, oh, you know,
Speaker 2: there's nothing to see here or maybe there.
Speaker 5: Is, well, yeah, coverage basically, I mean I've subscribed in
Speaker 5: New York Times, so I've read it in their coverage,
Speaker 5: you know, said their story was something like what's in
Speaker 5: the files or something? The headline right, and then the
Speaker 5: very first subheading said Oswald did it right.
Speaker 2: See but that's the thing is, and I said, immediately,
Speaker 2: the mouthpiece of the CIA has spoken, Okay, great, yawn, Okay,
Speaker 2: what are you going to do to me? The proclamations
Speaker 2: from the mainstream media are not educated, could not possibly
Speaker 2: have been researched. I don't care how large their team was.
Speaker 2: They didn't have time unless they had advanced looks at
Speaker 2: this stuff before it dropped, and they had people that
Speaker 2: were experienced enough to know what they were looking at.
Speaker 2: So to me, the New York Times declarations or you know,
Speaker 2: the Daily Beast or whoever else is out there saying
Speaker 2: what they're saying, they are not doing it from a
Speaker 2: perspective of having actually looked at it, Which is why
Speaker 2: we need to talk to people like Larry, We need
Speaker 2: to talk to people like Jefferson. We need to look
Speaker 2: at these things for ourselves, and collectively we need to
Speaker 2: come up with some answers here as to what it
Speaker 2: is we actually got. So, Larry, I'd like to begin there,
Speaker 2: if you don't mind, what is it that we actually
Speaker 2: got after all of this lug of war, the pr game,
Speaker 2: so to speak, at the end of the day, we
Speaker 2: either got some new information or we didn't. What is
Speaker 2: your overall verdict, and maybe you could start to describe
Speaker 2: why it is your verdict is the way it is.
Speaker 2: And I haven't discussed this with you in advance, so
Speaker 2: I don't know fully what your thoughts are.
Speaker 3: Just go ahead. The floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And what I said, again, as we usually do,
Speaker 1: we have taught context and we have to accept that
Speaker 1: neither the president nor most of the media that's not
Speaker 1: really been deeply involved with this, understands what the k
Speaker 1: collection is. Okay, I would say I truly didn't understand
Speaker 1: what it was until the Mary Farrell Foundation with the Court,
Speaker 1: and that's been a many months tutorial and what it
Speaker 1: really is and issues pertaining to it. But the point
Speaker 1: is we did not get new documents. We got documents
Speaker 1: that were in the JFKA collection. We all know where
Speaker 1: those came from, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the ARB's
Speaker 1: that's it. We haven't really seen any new documents since
Speaker 1: the ARRB started releasing things that hadn't been released before.
Speaker 1: So this the JFK collection, I know the first night
Speaker 1: that I started looking through it last week. The Mary
Speaker 1: Parl search engine has a tool on it that lets
Speaker 1: you literally see which generation release this is. You know,
Speaker 1: how has this been released before and how many times?
Speaker 1: And I was looking at documents that had been released
Speaker 1: three to six times previously. Sometimes they had been re
Speaker 1: released with less reactions, sometimes they'd been actually re released
Speaker 1: with more reactions.
Speaker 2: Right now, just real quickly, I wanted to ask you
Speaker 2: to add a little context to this because there is
Speaker 2: a matter of perspective we need to take into account
Speaker 2: regarding the people now in charge. You got the DNI,
Speaker 2: which is Tulsea Gabbard, right, she would have some input
Speaker 2: on this, I think, and the current acting head of
Speaker 2: the CIA would have some input on this, yes, But
Speaker 2: in reality, do they actually have the education to even
Speaker 2: know what it is they're releasing? What it is has
Speaker 2: been previously released and would they even begin to explore
Speaker 2: something like you just did regarding has this been released
Speaker 2: three times or six times before? More or less reactions.
Speaker 2: And oh, by the way, if anybody out there is thinking,
Speaker 2: how could they release something with more reactions, let us
Speaker 2: remember that during George W. Bush's administration, he even reclassified
Speaker 2: some things that were previously declassified that happened during his administration.
Speaker 3: I'm not trying to make any statements about it. It's
Speaker 3: just a matter of fact.
Speaker 2: We even had confusion as to whether am I now
Speaker 2: in possession of classified documents that were previously dec classified.
Speaker 3: This was an issue, and.
Speaker 2: So we've had a back and forth here where you
Speaker 2: would have to understand the nuances of what has been released,
Speaker 2: what hasn't been released, and what the significance of those
Speaker 2: things are. And it could be a double edged sword
Speaker 2: here where we have it working to on our behalf
Speaker 2: and also against US people not quite knowing what is
Speaker 2: relevant here and what is not relevant regarding previous releases
Speaker 2: and what's happening now. Or is that an unfair statement
Speaker 2: coming from me?
Speaker 3: What do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, I thought that was going to be true. I
Speaker 1: think several of us speculated. The way you normally expect
Speaker 1: is that the DNI, you know, the the agencies that
Speaker 1: were involved. You know, if the president says, okay, everything
Speaker 1: that's in collection is going to be released, right if
Speaker 1: it hasn't been released before, we got to release it now,
Speaker 1: every which means you've got to take a look at
Speaker 1: again and swear to me that you don't have a
Speaker 1: case to redact it, because the directive also said, and
Speaker 1: he said, I want you to release everything, and I
Speaker 1: don't want it redacted, if you know that's what I want. Now, Remember,
Speaker 1: all of these documents are setting at NARA. They're not
Speaker 1: sitting with the agencies. They were all collected, they're setting
Speaker 1: at NARA. NARA had scanned a bunch of them, had
Speaker 1: been working on scanning for a long time. So then
Speaker 1: then the question that's going to be raised, I think,
Speaker 1: could could this have worked in our favor or not?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: Working in our favor would be something very literal like no,
Speaker 1: the agencies don't get a chance to look again and
Speaker 1: say no, they don't just kind of like just let
Speaker 1: them go. And that appears to have been what happened.
Speaker 1: And the reason it happened that way apparently is because Trump,
Speaker 1: being very situational, went to the JFK Center and took
Speaker 1: the opportunity to literally say it's happening and that's Mike.
Speaker 1: As you said, they called in a batch of people
Speaker 1: just immediately as soon as he said that, and there's
Speaker 1: it's like we're, we're and that's why they released them
Speaker 1: in batches. There were two batches. Maybe there's a third batch.
Speaker 1: None of the twenty three hundred FBI newly found documents
Speaker 1: appear to have been released, and so far from what
Speaker 1: has been seen, it appears strangely that those may be
Speaker 1: documents that were collected for the ARB. And I don't
Speaker 1: understand why the FBI wouldn't have realized that was JFK
Speaker 1: relevant if they collected them from the ARB. So bottom line, Chuck,
Speaker 1: to answer your question, I think things worked strictly through
Speaker 1: the randomness and the chaos of presidential statements, worked to
Speaker 1: our advantage, and that we got. We got things that
Speaker 1: the CIA, normally, I think, would have fought to death
Speaker 1: not to have released, like this Lessoner memo, things that
Speaker 1: are hugely embarrassing, things that to the agency, things that
Speaker 1: are usually embarrassing to the country in terms of source
Speaker 1: information from other intelligence agencies. I mean, it's not as
Speaker 1: bad as what's going on in the news now, But
Speaker 1: if I were one of the five eyes, agencies. I
Speaker 1: would really be seriously considering what I could share with
Speaker 1: the US.
Speaker 2: Right if you wouldn't mind be a little more specific
Speaker 2: about this Lessenger memo, because I think this is of
Speaker 2: some significance and is of interest, not necessarily to revealing
Speaker 2: the shooters on the you know, on the day of
Speaker 2: the twenty second, but it does have something to do
Speaker 2: with the interaction of John F. Kennedy and the CIA,
Speaker 2: because this is literally I mean quick summation again and
Speaker 2: maybe way too quick and way too short. Is Lessinger
Speaker 2: identifying to Kennedy how it is he could would should
Speaker 2: maybe reorber organize the CIA change it up, because revealed
Speaker 2: in that memo, as I remember, is nearly half of
Speaker 2: these diplomatic you know, people out there on the planet
Speaker 2: seemed to be under CIA control. Now that's interesting. The
Speaker 2: diplomatic corps is half basically our intelligence agencies. We're not
Speaker 2: looking at, you know, people out there trying to just
Speaker 2: you know, get good relations, make little deals and make nice,
Speaker 2: you know, make nice with other foreign countries. And I
Speaker 2: mean from the most significant to the least. It's kind
Speaker 2: of interesting that that was sort of revealed there. But
Speaker 2: could you talk about the s Lessenger memo and how
Speaker 2: it came about, and this kind of thing, if you
Speaker 2: don't mind.
Speaker 1: What one of the motives for the assassination, you know,
Speaker 1: all the ones that we have has long been that
Speaker 1: the CIA decided they had to eliminate JFK because he
Speaker 1: was going to destroy the agency and that was treasonable
Speaker 1: in face of the you know, the co war. We
Speaker 1: can't let him do this, and the often on the
Speaker 1: front lines, and you know, if he starts messing around
Speaker 1: with us, that in itself is treason us well.
Speaker 2: And the often quoted and repeated, you know, sentiment, I'm
Speaker 2: going to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and
Speaker 2: scatter it to the wind, which he said to a
Speaker 2: New York Times reporter, and that reporter let the world
Speaker 2: know about it later, and people have ever after applied
Speaker 2: that to being the CIA in its own defense turned
Speaker 2: around and what assisted in, or participated directly or ran
Speaker 2: the operation that killed John F.
Speaker 3: Kennedy.
Speaker 2: That's been the assertion in conspiracy culture for a long time.
Speaker 2: So or am I incorrect about that?
Speaker 1: That has been the assertion. And so the question is
Speaker 1: was JFK that serious?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: Was that just a random comment? The what we know
Speaker 1: now is that he asked Schlessinger to do a study
Speaker 1: and really address the issue. You know, is the an
Speaker 1: agency inft? Is it organized correctly? Are we being served
Speaker 1: by the agency as it gone rogue to some extent
Speaker 1: in administering policy? And lesseners message memo, which is given
Speaker 1: to us now totally unredacted, goes into all of those areas,
Speaker 1: and it points out that the CIA was so disconnected
Speaker 1: that in many occasions it was indeed operating counter to
Speaker 1: administration policy and encounter to the State Department. Now, for
Speaker 1: those of us who've been looking at memos for a
Speaker 1: long time, this is no shock. But what is is
Speaker 1: the shock is the extent to which this memo from
Speaker 1: Sessions or details how the CIA could indeed be broken apart.
Speaker 1: You know, what would you move under state, what would
Speaker 1: be under the military, would you even have an agency?
Speaker 1: He actually comes up with a different proposed name for
Speaker 1: what the function that's left. And so the memo, the
Speaker 1: memo certainly does support the prim us that you know,
Speaker 1: JFK was looking very seriously at taking apart the c I, A,
Speaker 1: and and and gives the reasons why, which again is
Speaker 1: you start to say some of it is to how
Speaker 1: many officers they have really in some locations, you know,
Speaker 1: they're a third of the whole embastry staff. We knew
Speaker 1: they were operating undercovers, we didn't realize there were that many,
Speaker 1: so that this really is explosive and you can see
Speaker 1: why the agency would actually never want that public.
Speaker 2: Well, does this also relate to what we've discussed on
Speaker 2: the program before regarding Kennedy sort of moving things toward
Speaker 2: the d N You know what it was that the
Speaker 2: d i A as opposed to the CIA, where he
Speaker 2: was trying to empower them and seemingly take away some
Speaker 2: of the operations from the CIA that was seemingly actively
Speaker 2: happening before his assassination, and this related to it in
Speaker 2: any way? Does does the Slessenger memo reflect on that?
Speaker 1: I think what it reflects on is in the memo,
Speaker 1: I don't remember the exact wording is essentially there's an
Speaker 1: expression from JFK that Slessenger is addressing that JFK does
Speaker 1: not feel that he can count on getting the truth
Speaker 1: that every agency, whether it's done that to be the CIA,
Speaker 1: it could be Navy, it could be air Force. He
Speaker 1: knows that he's always gotten different stories from the Navy
Speaker 1: and the air Force, sorry, the air Force and the CIA,
Speaker 1: and that's misled him. That misled him into his campaign
Speaker 1: statements about a missile that gap. He didn't trust that
Speaker 1: he could give objective information from the services, so he
Speaker 1: created the DNI. He now doesn't trust that he can
Speaker 1: get objective information from the CIA. You know what's the
Speaker 1: answer to that. So it just that the memo confirms
Speaker 1: Kennedy's statement that he's not satisfied that he's getting objective
Speaker 1: information the way the intelligence community is designed.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, that's one way to go about it. And meanwhile, Mike,
Speaker 2: you'd observed some connections with well the Joint chiefs of Staff.
Speaker 2: And another thing that has come out in these discussions
Speaker 2: in the past week has been regarding Northwoods, right.
Speaker 5: And that's I want to make one other point. That's
Speaker 5: the whole other thing, just with the current news, you know,
Speaker 5: in the in the release of the files. So this
Speaker 5: representative Luna, about six weeks ago, she held a press
Speaker 5: conference announcing, you know that she's going to do this.
Speaker 5: She's hitting this task force. And the task force is
Speaker 5: part of another congressional what is the word for it,
Speaker 5: A Congressional Committee. Okay, well, the task Force, because a
Speaker 5: sub you know, is.
Speaker 2: A subcommittee of like say, the Intelligence Committee, which I
Speaker 2: think is what will be the awesome says that this
Speaker 2: hearing that Morley is going to testify under, it'll be
Speaker 2: in front of the Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 4: Young Luna is in charge of this hearing.
Speaker 5: Anyway, she has this press conference, and you know, she
Speaker 5: said some stuff about the assassination. And there are two
Speaker 5: things she said. One the goal, her goal, Okay, she
Speaker 5: said her goal was to change the narrative in regards
Speaker 5: to the assassination, right, and then she said that previous
Speaker 5: congressional and all the previous congressional investigations, she said, basically,
Speaker 5: we're failures, including the very first one. She conflated the
Speaker 5: Warren Commission as being a congressional investigation.
Speaker 4: Which it wasn't, right.
Speaker 5: And and then she there's another fact or statement. She
Speaker 5: said that you know it was mistaken. This I'm not
Speaker 5: just a mistake, okay. And I got the impression that
Speaker 5: she does at that time when she's given this press conference,
Speaker 5: she didn't really know very much about the assassination itself,
Speaker 5: but that phrase she wants to change the narrative. She
Speaker 5: obviously wasn't looking, you know, it isn't looking to reaffirm
Speaker 5: the Warren Commission. And she said some stuff about she
Speaker 5: believed there's a second shooter. She said that, Now what
Speaker 5: Another interesting comment she made was that she's coordinating with
Speaker 5: the White House.
Speaker 4: So I got the impression she might.
Speaker 5: Have said the nationals someone on the on the National
Speaker 5: Security Council, actually, but I got the impression that there's
Speaker 5: some I don't know who it is, but there's someone
Speaker 5: on the National Security staff that she or the people.
Speaker 5: You know, it's not just her. I'm sure it's a
Speaker 5: couple of people with the staff that she's working with
Speaker 5: for this hearing. They're closely working with the White House.
Speaker 5: I mean, she basically said that. And then okay, and
Speaker 5: then the Epstein thing, you know, happens and it turns
Speaker 5: into a fiasco sort of a whole lot, and then
Speaker 5: we get these files released, and then her appearance in
Speaker 5: Morley's webinar was very interesting to me. Now, she basically
Speaker 5: said in this webinar that she thought the c did it.
Speaker 4: Well. She said, but.
Speaker 2: Here's the thing, Mike, here's the thing, Mike, and I
Speaker 2: need to make this comment here because what we have
Speaker 2: here is somebody conflating a bunch of things, Okay, and
Speaker 2: this is due to the fact that, again, I think
Speaker 2: the people that are in power at the moment, who
Speaker 2: were actually empowered and can release these things, are looking
Speaker 2: at it from a pr standpoint, sort of a political standpoint, right,
Speaker 2: they're scoring points.
Speaker 4: So I'm trying to.
Speaker 3: That's what they're doing.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, they're not read in like
Speaker 2: you pointed out, she's conflating the Warren Commission with a
Speaker 2: congressional hearing. Meanwhile, if she knew the actual official conclusion
Speaker 2: of the House Select Committee, which would be a congressional hearing,
Speaker 2: then she'd know that the House Select Committee basically already
Speaker 2: concluded that there.
Speaker 3: Was help for Ozone, Right, So.
Speaker 4: You bring that up.
Speaker 5: Yeah, When the New York Times reported on the files release,
Speaker 5: they had that headline, Oswell did it. And in that
Speaker 5: part of the story or subheating, Oswald did it?
Speaker 4: You know what did the files say? Right?
Speaker 5: And in that subheating it said that every congressional committee
Speaker 5: or in every government investigation concluded that Oswald was the assassin.
Speaker 5: That's not true. You know, we know the House Select
Speaker 5: Committee concluded that there is more than one shooter.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but they but they effectively concluded. But but Mike,
Speaker 2: they effectively concluded that Oswald did it too. It's just
Speaker 2: that he had help, you know what I mean?
Speaker 4: So, yeah, I know.
Speaker 5: But the way the New York Times phrased this was
Speaker 5: very misleading.
Speaker 4: Of course, you know, they don't they didn't say that.
Speaker 5: It's very misleading, right, deliberately misleading, deliberately misleading. Whereas when
Speaker 5: this representative Luna was given a press conference, I didn't
Speaker 5: feel like, oh, she's deliberately trying to deceive, you know,
Speaker 5: or anything like that. She just isn't a hundred you know,
Speaker 5: does She's new to this and Larry have been looking
Speaker 5: into this stuff forever.
Speaker 4: You know, these people have not.
Speaker 5: And frankly, I don't think the people in the government, uh,
Speaker 5: the CIA or other agencies of the government, Yeah they
Speaker 5: know who did it, or them, you know, could tell
Speaker 5: I have evidence he really did it.
Speaker 2: Not only don't they know who did it, but they
Speaker 2: wouldn't know where to look for the evidence. See that's
Speaker 2: the thing about this, right, But.
Speaker 4: What good about the morally webinar?
Speaker 5: She said on the webinar that they are she's been
Speaker 5: tipped off basically that there's a CIA Inspector General's report
Speaker 5: somewhere in these files that says that there are people
Speaker 5: in the CIA that that were whistleblowers and talked about
Speaker 5: some sort of involvement of the agency or something, you know.
Speaker 5: And she said this was basically, if this can be discovered,
Speaker 5: it would just blow the lid on everything. Or I
Speaker 5: can't remember the exact phrase she had. She's basically, yeah,
Speaker 5: making it sound like there's this smoking gun document that
Speaker 5: she hasn't seen, but it's been tipped off, is out
Speaker 5: there and.
Speaker 4: So forth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but here's the realistic thing, right, just like when
Speaker 2: you see an unnamed source, you know, with a newspaper,
Speaker 2: here's the problem. That source tipping her, especially in Trump Land,
Speaker 2: could be anybody from Mike Pompeio, who was the former
Speaker 2: head of the CIA, was also the former out of
Speaker 2: the State Department, right, who had access to things, who
Speaker 2: was asked about these things and was involved in the
Speaker 2: you know, withholding of documents in twenty seventeen. It could
Speaker 2: be anybody from Mike Pompeio talking to her to Roger
Speaker 2: Stone telling her that hey, there is a smoking gun.
Speaker 4: It's so very unreliable.
Speaker 1: Maybe I can give a little context too, because okay,
Speaker 1: this is not Luna's first subcommittee hearing. Her first series
Speaker 1: of hearings had to do with UFOs. And one of
Speaker 1: the things that all representatives, I think are it's a
Speaker 1: risk they fake, is they don't investigate things until they
Speaker 1: get tips, until they get leads. And these days whistleblowers
Speaker 1: is the thing people people are going to their congressman
Speaker 1: saying I have insider information. And that is what happened
Speaker 1: to her on the UFO thing. She had people that
Speaker 1: had worked for the government, the whole set of them
Speaker 1: that claim to have inside information. And as a representative,
Speaker 1: her view of life is okay, if these people have
Speaker 1: some credentials, you know, I'm a representative. I need to
Speaker 1: put this in front of the nation.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: One of the problems is with UFOs she got a
Speaker 1: real mix bag. She got some of the people approaching
Speaker 1: her like pilots that were credible witnesses, and another set
Speaker 1: of people really who have nothing other than gossip and anecdotes,
Speaker 1: and so her her hearings on UFOs were kind of
Speaker 1: a mixed bag. Now, a good side of things, since
Speaker 1: I do the UFO stuff too, is it opened up
Speaker 1: a lot of discussion, and I opened up a lot
Speaker 1: of interest in the topic, and that always gives you
Speaker 1: some room to maneuver. She's going through the same thing
Speaker 1: on JFK, as you said, Mike. She has a source
Speaker 1: and she's been very sincere about this that has told her,
Speaker 1: and this has got to be an inside source who
Speaker 1: has seen an IG report that talks about this, and
Speaker 1: so she has been told there was at one point
Speaker 1: an officeral not part of the JFK collection. You know,
Speaker 1: this is something outside the collection and IGOR that existed
Speaker 1: and was never given to anybody investigating this. That shows
Speaker 1: that the CIA did have whistle blowers that provided them information,
Speaker 1: which is kind of interesting because we know that down
Speaker 1: at Wave that they did ask some questions and collect
Speaker 1: some information right that was never given to the Warrant
Speaker 1: Commission or anybody else. But she's kind of I think
Speaker 1: what's going on now, especially with Jeff being giving testimony,
Speaker 1: is she's once again in between these people who claim
Speaker 1: to be whistleblowers. Some may be credible, most probably aren't.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's an exposure and I guess what
Speaker 1: you have to say is at least she's gutsy enough
Speaker 1: to go risk her a reputation to walk that line,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, a real high risk line. But
Speaker 1: I will say, and this is Chuck, you know I
Speaker 1: always do this. This is my editorial opiniontorial opinion is
Speaker 1: there's nothing in the JFK collection that we now have
Speaker 1: that's going to solve this mystery unless we can go
Speaker 1: outside the box and collect some other stuff, whether it's
Speaker 1: original films from NBC or whether it's things that we
Speaker 1: know about that weren't given to anybody by the CIA
Speaker 1: or the Unless you get out of the box, we're done.
Speaker 1: Trump is going to sign this off as a done deal,
Speaker 1: claim credit. It's over unless she can get spur the
Speaker 1: water enough to get some more collections done.
Speaker 3: Right now.
Speaker 2: In the nineteen seventies, right during the House Select Committee,
Speaker 2: there were people honestly asking why aren't there more of
Speaker 2: these reports, these types of IG reports. There should be
Speaker 2: more of this, There should be more of this analysis.
Speaker 2: There should be something criticizing the Secret Service for interest
Speaker 2: per instance. Right there should be this or not. There
Speaker 2: should have been plenty of people looking into why these
Speaker 2: things went wrong at least and they were asking for
Speaker 2: it openly back then. And guess what they came up with. Nothing,
Speaker 2: So you know, I mean not nothing, but essentially nothing
Speaker 2: compared to the amount of reports and investigations that they
Speaker 2: would have expected when things went wrong like this. Okay,
Speaker 2: and this is again my editorial, right, So that question
Speaker 2: has been out there and opened for a long time.
Speaker 2: If she has indeed stumbled across somebody who legitimately has
Speaker 2: that information, that's great. But you and I, Larry, both
Speaker 2: know that there have been legends of documents, There have
Speaker 2: been legends of investigations. In fact, there was a whole
Speaker 2: investigation that took place in nineteen eighty eight that nobody
Speaker 2: can seem to find any paper trail for. Right There
Speaker 2: are people that said they were questioned in the in
Speaker 2: the later and mid eighties by official people from the
Speaker 2: Department of Justice, the FBI showed up this and that
Speaker 2: and the th thing, and nobody to this day has
Speaker 2: ever found this paper trail to show that there was
Speaker 2: an organized investigation to re examine stuff in the Kennedy case.
Speaker 3: Are you're aware that one right now?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, So we have the legend of an investigation
Speaker 2: and no paperwork for it. Now, if somebody's got that
Speaker 2: or a whistleblower says, they know the whereabouts of where
Speaker 2: that paper trail went. Who knows what might be revealed
Speaker 2: in there. I don't know, but there's a lot of
Speaker 2: stuff that happened. I mean, they questioned photographers, they questioned,
Speaker 2: you know, people that were witnesses to different events in
Speaker 2: the late eighties. And to this day, nobody can find
Speaker 2: the transcripts, the FBI reports what are they called three
Speaker 2: to two reports the incidents, and nobody can find this stuff.
Speaker 2: And yet over and over again we have people that
Speaker 2: were seemingly and previously unconnected to one another stating they
Speaker 2: had been approached, they had been questioned, they had officials
Speaker 2: come to them, investigators come to them who either were
Speaker 2: claiming to be FBI, claiming to be connected to the
Speaker 2: Department of Justice and not or were And we still
Speaker 2: do not have these files in hand. And one would
Speaker 2: think logically that this would be a legitimate piece of
Speaker 2: the JFK investigation. And indeed, if somebody's got these FBI files,
Speaker 2: they could be connected to that legendary investigation. But I'm
Speaker 2: speculating out here openly. This is not you know, I
Speaker 2: have no evidence to back up what I'm saying. Here,
Speaker 2: I'm just saying theoretically that is something.
Speaker 1: That could bear to we've been in the uf if
Speaker 1: she was burned a certain extent, although in a couple
Speaker 1: of instances that's still open to be determined. The interesting
Speaker 1: thing is the net result from the UFO case is
Speaker 1: a government entity was created, right with a lot of
Speaker 1: pushing actually from her committee. That entity is now actively
Speaker 1: pursuing those those types of whistleblower leads. Unfortunately, here's You've
Speaker 1: got to love this transparency, right, So her efforts at
Speaker 1: transparency resulted in an agency being created that you know,
Speaker 1: it's folks, it's its own work, was going to heavily
Speaker 1: involve IGS, and now that is no longer transparent because
Speaker 1: it has national security implications. You got to love that, right,
Speaker 1: But I get so we don't. And I guess all
Speaker 1: I'm really getting at here is I'm not sure how
Speaker 1: we're going to resolve this without a Hail Mary. So
Speaker 1: I'm not adverse to hail Mary's at this point in time.
Speaker 5: Well, well, I feel like just the files that have
Speaker 5: been what we have now, just what we have now,
Speaker 5: and well still it's going to take a long time
Speaker 5: for people to look through them. They're not going to
Speaker 5: solve the assassination, like Larry said, but they'll provide a
Speaker 5: incredible amount of historic detail that can be used to
Speaker 5: better understand everything surrounding.
Speaker 3: It, right, but definitely expanding, Like well.
Speaker 5: Larry said, how do we get more stuff? You know,
Speaker 5: what has to be done to get to keep the pressure.
Speaker 2: Right, We almost need an ARRB Part two to get
Speaker 2: you know, another and that required a huge outcry and
Speaker 2: all that, And of course we know the story of
Speaker 2: the Oliver Stone film. But with that in mind, I'd
Speaker 2: like to turn to something that is a bit interesting
Speaker 2: and has expanded now in people's knowledge base. And of
Speaker 2: course the Records Collection Actor is responsible for anybody even
Speaker 2: being aware of it, and that's Operation Northwoods. Okay, we
Speaker 2: now know that not only did you know Northwoods everybody
Speaker 2: in case you don't know, let's just you know, give
Speaker 2: you the summary.
Speaker 3: Once again.
Speaker 2: You have this proposal from the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Speaker 2: presented to John F. Kennedy and I think nineteen sixty
Speaker 2: one regarding you know, a tactical and planning to cause
Speaker 2: you know, let's just be blunt and nasty about it,
Speaker 2: false flag possibilities for how to provoke an incident with Cuba,
Speaker 2: justify an invasion, even maybe you know, all this stuff
Speaker 2: and wild accusations about maybe you know, staging a a
Speaker 2: US airliner being blown up with students on it. Uh,
Speaker 2: maybe without real students on it, but you know, we
Speaker 2: could stage this et cetera, remote control planes, all this
Speaker 2: wild stuff. JFK uh you know, said no basically to
Speaker 2: the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But we find out that
Speaker 2: Northwoods was not completely abandoned and thrown in the garbage.
Speaker 2: Apparently they revisited this a couple of years later. We
Speaker 2: now know that we wouldn't have known any of this
Speaker 2: without the JFK records collection. But what do we know
Speaker 2: regarding that now? Larry, are you aware of the Northwoods
Speaker 2: expansion of information and what do you have to say
Speaker 2: about that? Or even I went to some documents, if
Speaker 2: you like, I.
Speaker 1: Am aware of that. And this is the point where
Speaker 1: I always get myself in trouble and I get to
Speaker 1: be a contrarian. So just be prepared incoming. North Woods
Speaker 1: is not at all unique. North Woods is simply was
Speaker 1: a contingency plan, right, and it came from Lansdale. It
Speaker 1: did not come from anybody else. That was part of
Speaker 1: Mond's mon Goose, and Lansdale was soliciting options. You know,
Speaker 1: had what had been done before the Cuba project hadn't worked.
Speaker 1: You know, the military said let's just go ahead and invade.
Speaker 1: Lansdale knew that that's not something Kennedy really wanted to do,
Speaker 1: so under mong Goose, he went to the Joint chiefs
Speaker 1: and said, give me options, give me false flag options,
Speaker 1: you know, because we're not just going to invade. If
Speaker 1: we went that route, it would have to be under
Speaker 1: a false flag. Now, I can take you back to
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty one, nineteen sixty and show you an exchange
Speaker 1: between Eisenhower and dulles Well, Eisenhower and Bissel actually where
Speaker 1: Eisenhower actually literally said, okay, CIA, give me false flags.
Speaker 1: Give me false flags. I don't care what they are.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's an attack on Guantanamo and I'll invade.
Speaker 4: Do it.
Speaker 1: False Flags and contingencies for false flags are not really
Speaker 1: anything new. That's why you see it come up again.
Speaker 1: In nineteen sixty two, nineteen sixty three, JFK had had
Speaker 1: task the military sink Atlantic with preparing for another Cuban invasion.
Speaker 1: I know that's wild. I know, people don't like to
Speaker 1: hear it. There are lots of documents on that, documents
Speaker 1: that even go as far as using poison gas in
Speaker 1: the invasion. And so the Joint chief's staff, we're not
Speaker 1: talking about the Joint chiefs. We're talking about staff officers
Speaker 1: reporting to the chiefs who are supporting a tasking from
Speaker 1: the president. Okay, give me a plan if I have
Speaker 1: to decide to go into military, how do I do it?
Speaker 1: So they revive and go back to their staff and
Speaker 1: go give me another. Contingency plans are never abandoned, I
Speaker 1: will tell you right now. In the Pentagon, under the
Speaker 1: Joint Chiefs somewhere, there's a whole set of staff plans
Speaker 1: for all sorts of contingencies, mostly not false flags, mostly
Speaker 1: what to do if the other guy does it first.
Speaker 1: But that's what those staff officers are there for. So
Speaker 1: I'm not surprised at all to see that it didn't
Speaker 1: go away, because it never goes away.
Speaker 2: And in the past we even joked about, you know,
Speaker 2: possibly going to war with Canada, and that was a
Speaker 2: contingency plan that guarantees has developed. And the funny thing is,
Speaker 2: who knows, you know, at this point, do we really
Speaker 2: want to make a more fifty first state anyway.
Speaker 1: A folder on Trump's desk for Lord's sake.
Speaker 2: Right, So you know, yeah, contingency plans don't go away,
Speaker 2: but they don't necessarily land right on the important people's
Speaker 2: desks unless they ask for them.
Speaker 3: Right. But anyway, Mike, did you want to add anything
Speaker 3: to this?
Speaker 4: Oh? No, not right now?
Speaker 2: Okay, fair enough, But Larry, what else could we have discovered?
Speaker 2: I mean, we got some nuances, we have some additions.
Speaker 2: I think at the very least, one could say that
Speaker 2: the constant denial over the decades from the CIA that
Speaker 2: we had no idea who Lee rby Oswald was. We
Speaker 2: don't know who this kid was. He's just some loser,
Speaker 2: some nobody and all this kind of thing. The CIA
Speaker 2: had nothing to do with him. We would have never
Speaker 2: hired him as an officer, we would have never used
Speaker 2: him for anything. We would have never even looked at
Speaker 2: this guy. Apparently, well, you know, big shocker. Maybe not
Speaker 2: so true. And that's being backed up a little more
Speaker 2: in these new files. I think, what do you think?
Speaker 1: Oh? Yeah, absolutely, I think that's it. Just it allows
Speaker 1: you to have a great laugh when David Phillips has
Speaker 1: quoted giving testimony that's saying Lee Harvey Oswell was never
Speaker 1: on our radar. It's like, David, did you look at
Speaker 1: the scope? I mean, you know, uh that that has
Speaker 1: been beaten to death.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: I think a couple of interesting things. I did look
Speaker 1: at one document where the CIA was quite concerned with
Speaker 1: what they knew about Lee Harvey Oswell. They couldn't understand
Speaker 1: why he had gone into Russia through rel Sinki, how
Speaker 1: he'd gotten through real Sinki so easily, you know, had
Speaker 1: he had he shared information to get in whatever their
Speaker 1: puzzle about this, and they're they're puzzle by how he
Speaker 1: came out with a Russian wife. I mean all of
Speaker 1: that kind that tends to argue that they didn't know
Speaker 1: what was going on with Lee Harvey Oswell going into Russia.
Speaker 1: That there there have been some there have been some
Speaker 1: other things about Oswald I think are really interesting though
Speaker 1: to me, when people say that these files are not helpful, again,
Speaker 1: they may not be helpful to the media who's looking
Speaker 1: for a smoking gun, but I will say we got
Speaker 1: a lot of information down at the grunt level of
Speaker 1: identities and names and who's talking to. We now know
Speaker 1: that in new Orleans, Sylvia Odio's uncle, mister Quitart, although
Speaker 1: sorry I'm mispronouncing that name, was actually part of a
Speaker 1: spotter team that was supposed to be looking at Cuban
Speaker 1: supporters and Cuban agents. They were even using they had
Speaker 1: created a cover identity for this young woman who was
Speaker 1: supposedly his niece, created a cover for her using her
Speaker 1: as a male stop. We're just beginning to realize what
Speaker 1: we didn't see where we should look, you know, names
Speaker 1: like you and I and David have discussed. We're seeing
Speaker 1: that that was much deeper than we realized at the time.
Speaker 1: So it's it's going to allow us to connect some dots.
Speaker 1: But that's that's the level of detail. The media would
Speaker 1: would never understand U and I wouldn't expect them to understand.
Speaker 1: But that sort of thing we are getting out of
Speaker 1: the reactions that removed sources and names and you know reporting,
Speaker 1: that's that's good stuff.
Speaker 2: So overall, what would you say, I mean, what would
Speaker 2: you add to this that we have learned that's new?
Speaker 2: I mean I asked some very specific questions, but I mean,
Speaker 2: what what have you discovered outside of the uh, you know,
Speaker 2: stuff that I brought up here? That might be of
Speaker 2: interest to people that you could say, look, I find
Speaker 2: this interesting or this is new to me. Is anything
Speaker 2: really new to you in these files?
Speaker 4: Well, I'll just say one. You know, I barely looked
Speaker 4: at the stuff.
Speaker 5: Okay, you know it's not even haven't been up for
Speaker 5: for a week. But I read Angleton's testimony to the
Speaker 5: Church Committee, and I just one little thing in there
Speaker 5: that was kind of interesting was.
Speaker 4: He said that.
Speaker 5: The KGB did investigation into the assassination for I think
Speaker 5: it was six months in nineteen sixty four or six
Speaker 5: months afterwards, and they this is what Angleton is saying, Okay,
Speaker 5: that that KGB concluded that right wing businessmen and Lynnon
Speaker 5: Johnson were behind the assassination.
Speaker 4: And Angleton says something.
Speaker 5: To the fact that he thinks the Warren Commission should
Speaker 5: have never closed the uh, the possibility that is a
Speaker 5: conspiracy off and left it open and this would be
Speaker 5: something that could have been investigated further, this KGB thing.
Speaker 5: But then he said something like, well, we would never
Speaker 5: be able to get the information, you know, we never
Speaker 5: would be able to get the KGB to give us
Speaker 5: the real information that they had.
Speaker 2: Right, But then we had a turnover of Russian documents
Speaker 2: to Bill Clinton when he was in office at a
Speaker 2: certain point, and when those things were translated, we learned
Speaker 2: a little bit about the possibility that the Russians had
Speaker 2: investigated the Soviets excuse me, how investigated the circumstances, probably
Speaker 2: right away as soon as it happened, because they were clearly,
Speaker 2: you know, one of the prime suspects in the world's
Speaker 2: mind at that time, right, you know, this guy is
Speaker 2: a COMMI sympathizer. Uh oh, he went to Russia before
Speaker 2: uh oh, you know will Minsk technically in Belarus, but
Speaker 2: nonetheless he went to the Soviet Union. This guy, it
Speaker 2: would be instant that people would start to think that
Speaker 2: the Soviet Union was.
Speaker 3: A suspect, so to speak.
Speaker 2: So it would have been practically malpracticed on their part
Speaker 2: not to conduct their own investigation. And indeed, I remember
Speaker 2: a television show in the eighties stating that the Russians
Speaker 2: had concluded. And I wasn't able to read all the
Speaker 2: Russian documents back then, but in the late eighties or
Speaker 2: early nineties, I think a TV show went and said, hey,
Speaker 2: there was a Russian investigation and the Soviets concluded that
Speaker 2: LBJ probably had something to do with it, which I
Speaker 2: found kind of wild and interesting. But then again, they
Speaker 2: were in Texas. It's LBJ state. And oh, by the way,
Speaker 2: you know, we also have the different things that were
Speaker 2: going on there.
Speaker 3: They might have tapped into the rumor mills that were of.
Speaker 2: The same ilk that we hear about even today regarding that, so,
Speaker 2: I mean, possibilities are endless there. What are your thoughts
Speaker 2: about that, Larry, about the part about the KGB and
Speaker 2: all that.
Speaker 1: Well, I think two things. I think seen more Angleton
Speaker 1: than we have seen before leads us to the conclusion
Speaker 1: that you might as well never believe anything Angleton says
Speaker 1: about anything if you get trapped yourself in Angleton. It
Speaker 1: was two things. He was devious at the core, and
Speaker 1: he would craft any of his statements to the benefit
Speaker 1: of the CIA. I mean, it was like a religion
Speaker 1: to him. And he was extremely intelligent. So you just
Speaker 1: you're hanging yourself out if you accept everything he says
Speaker 1: at face value. And I've even shared my view of
Speaker 1: that with Jeff.
Speaker 2: That's interesting because Jeff is going out now talking about
Speaker 2: how the birth of cointelpro is pretty much witnessed in
Speaker 2: these documents because it would be a cooperative effort between
Speaker 2: the CIA and the FBI. Although most people think of
Speaker 2: cointelpro as pretty much Jadgar Hoover's baby, there was some
Speaker 2: level of cooperation there had to be at the time
Speaker 2: in order for them to conduct some of those operations
Speaker 2: that they did against the Black Panthers, against the UH,
Speaker 2: you know, the student unions, against the anti war protesters.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a lot there that might be filled
Speaker 2: in if one carefully studies this UH and takes a
Speaker 2: look at Angleton's stuff. But again, his statements, he's lying
Speaker 2: a lot, and he's lying in intricate ways. It's not
Speaker 2: blunt faced. You know, he says it's black when it's white.
Speaker 2: He's got a whole array of things going on here
Speaker 2: in his statements versus the reality or am I being
Speaker 2: unfair about this now?
Speaker 1: And I think that's that's a very good point. If
Speaker 1: if you look at if you look at ht Lingual
Speaker 1: and the documents in this that talk about how Angleton
Speaker 1: and Cee I say created ht Lingual didn't tell the
Speaker 1: FBI they were doing it, which is is great. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're doing this against MAO coming to America and citizens
Speaker 1: and we haven't shared us with the FBI, but the
Speaker 1: FBI caught us, and then we had to explain what
Speaker 1: we were doing. And then once we explain what we're doing,
Speaker 1: we even offer them the use of our facilities on mail.
Speaker 1: Intercept is humorous, but it certainly serves as a prototype.
Speaker 1: The excesses that were created there gives a good view
Speaker 1: into what Angleton really did with quintelpro, but how he
Speaker 1: managed to defend it. Because if you look at how
Speaker 1: he's defending ht Lingual to the FBI and kind of
Speaker 1: like diverting them and sweeping under the rug all the
Speaker 1: violations of you know, citizens' rights, he did the same
Speaker 1: thing with Cointelpro. But I think what I wanted to
Speaker 1: get back and say, and I've talked to Jeff about
Speaker 1: this one thing we miss And this is another point
Speaker 1: of why I've been conservative about what's in the JFK
Speaker 1: collecttion is in regard to Angleton, because we all know
Speaker 1: that Angleton's files, that headquarters files for c I A
Speaker 1: SIG were turned over as part of collections, Okay, and
Speaker 1: so that's why we find some Angleton CIA SIG stuff
Speaker 1: in the in the records that we have released.
Speaker 2: If you wouldn't mind to find.
Speaker 3: Files, if you wouldn't mind.
Speaker 1: Files which were literally hundreds of feet long were shielded.
Speaker 1: They were never turned over the Warrant Commission. So to
Speaker 1: think that we could understand what Angleton was doing with Oswald,
Speaker 1: or Angleton was doing with anything else is it's not
Speaker 1: reasonable because we know that when those hundreds of feet
Speaker 1: of records were brought back into the headquarters files after
Speaker 1: he left the CIA, a very large number of them
Speaker 1: were not admitted into the into the SA files. They
Speaker 1: were shredded. Right, we don't have a destructional list for them,
Speaker 1: which we should have and we should be able to
Speaker 1: ask for Actually, that would be really interesting. We know
Speaker 1: that things were destroyed related to the RFK assass nation.
Speaker 1: So that just talking about Angleton, how he lies what
Speaker 1: he says that's in the current collection the JFK records
Speaker 1: has to be set set against what never made it
Speaker 1: we we have. I think a lot of people have
Speaker 1: fooled themselves to think that somehow everything that was important
Speaker 1: was collected and if we could get it all, we'd
Speaker 1: see it all. And the answer was no, it wasn't right.
Speaker 2: If you don't mind, before you go any further, just
Speaker 2: try and define for people. The difference between c I
Speaker 2: and you know, because maybe somebody doesn't recognize that or
Speaker 2: you know, if you don't mind, just to explain that,
Speaker 2: in Angleton's you know, many feet of files, what would
Speaker 2: what would they have been? Exactly are we talking about
Speaker 2: his personal stuff? Is this sort of like you know,
Speaker 2: Hoover's files, who disappear you know when he die?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, go ahead, exactly like Hoover's files.
Speaker 1: What we really find is, I mean, to run an agency,
Speaker 1: you've got to have a central file system.
Speaker 3: Right And what is again, just if you don't mind.
Speaker 1: But every everybody's got to feed into it. Counter Intelligence
Speaker 1: Operations Soviet Division c ICE is counter intelligence, although counter
Speaker 1: intelligence has two aspects. For Angleton, one of it is
Speaker 1: literally doing counter intelligence against other intelligence agencies, the Russians,
Speaker 1: the Cubans, whatever, counter intelligence against their agents. For Angleton,
Speaker 1: a big part of it was trying to identify moles,
Speaker 1: people that are actually linked to other intelligence agencies inside
Speaker 1: our agency. So c I SIG is counter Intelligence special group, Okay,
Speaker 1: a special investigations group in particular. So yeah, surely CICIG
Speaker 1: would have fed a good deal of what they were
Speaker 1: doing into the into the headquarters files, okay, and they
Speaker 1: would have two one files on personalities and individuals and
Speaker 1: that would all appear there. But it's kind of that's
Speaker 1: a good illusion, chuck to the the FBI. You have
Speaker 1: FBI headquarters files, right, and then you have those that
Speaker 1: are in Hoover's office his personal files.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Not everything goes into the headquarters files. You have Angleton's
Speaker 1: personal files, which are huge. But according to the people,
Speaker 1: we actually have a document, like a thirty page document
Speaker 1: from the guy who was charged with bringing him back
Speaker 1: inside the CIA. As they said, hundreds of feet of
Speaker 1: files so much bigger than Hoover's. They wouldn't fit in
Speaker 1: his off in Angleton's office. So these are files that
Speaker 1: are Other officers in agencies FBI, c A may have
Speaker 1: what are called saft files that are sitting in their
Speaker 1: desks that have to do with operations they're working on,
Speaker 1: and maybe those haven't geled to the point that they
Speaker 1: were submitted to headquarters. You know, they're kind of like
Speaker 1: working files. They're called saw files. They're working files. As
Speaker 1: far as Hoover and Angled are concerned, they have working
Speaker 1: files that are way bigger than what would fit in
Speaker 1: a desk stower fair enough.
Speaker 2: So look, we've gone a full hour, okay, you know,
Speaker 2: just on this topic. And obviously, I mean, look, we're
Speaker 2: scratching the surface of I'm not sure if we got
Speaker 2: to eighty thousand pages, but I know we got to
Speaker 2: at least sixty thousand from what I could figure. But
Speaker 2: then again, i'm doing you know, rough estimates myself. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I think there's still some more to come. I don't
Speaker 2: know if we're going to ever see those FBI files
Speaker 2: that were you know, announced, but here we go again.
Speaker 2: There's going to be a lot of pronouncements and announcements
Speaker 2: regarding this, and I think we need to temper our
Speaker 2: expectations about it based on the fact that some of
Speaker 2: this is political theater, pure and simple. I'm not making
Speaker 2: a judgment about Trump, hears people or anything. I'm just saying,
Speaker 2: in general, based on past experience, it's always some level
Speaker 2: a political theater. It's always some level of reaction to
Speaker 2: the public's reaction, et cetera. This is always in play,
Speaker 2: and even more so in our current age of instant
Speaker 2: gratification social media. The President with his own social media platform, clearly,
Speaker 2: you know, every time he tweets or says something, the
Speaker 2: news media goes breaking news.
Speaker 3: Here we go. You know, this is the way of
Speaker 3: things now.
Speaker 2: So in the instant gratification media landscape we currently find
Speaker 2: ourselves attempting to traverse, there is a significant amount of
Speaker 2: tempering we need to do regarding these pronouncements and announcements.
Speaker 2: We're going to give you everything. We're going to give
Speaker 2: you all the files, absolute clarity. This is a new thing, whistleblowers.
Speaker 2: A lot of these terminologies being misused, misplaced, and misunderstood
Speaker 2: by not only the public, but in some cases the
Speaker 2: people in power. And I think again, it's still a
Speaker 2: double edged sword where it works for us and against
Speaker 2: us simultaneously in some cases regarding what information we're actually
Speaker 2: going to get our hands on and what information we
Speaker 2: could potentially get our hands on in the future. Again,
Speaker 2: that's all my editorial, but let's let my two guest
Speaker 2: slash co hosts here tie a bow on this their
Speaker 2: own way. Mike, what would you have to say in conclusion.
Speaker 4: Well, I just know the story isn't over yet.
Speaker 5: I want to watch these hearings and they'll just be
Speaker 5: in a couple of days, and hope we will get
Speaker 5: more information.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I mean, what do we got a week? Yeah,
Speaker 2: about a week or so before. It's April first, right,
Speaker 2: so you know, here we go next week, Yeah, next
Speaker 2: week we should we'll see jeff Jefferson Morley testify. I
Speaker 2: don't know if there's gonna be one day two days.
Speaker 2: I think they said it would be a one day
Speaker 2: hearing for the public. But again, there's public hearings, there's
Speaker 2: going to be private hearings probably, and some stuff that
Speaker 2: you got to tune into c SPAN and just happen
Speaker 2: to know what's happening in order to tune into. But
Speaker 2: either way, I think the media will continue to report
Speaker 2: on it as long as people show interest. But here
Speaker 2: we go again, you know, and it's deja vu all
Speaker 2: over again, as Yogi Barry used to say, We've been
Speaker 2: through this, Larry, and we continue to go through this.
Speaker 2: And what do you have to say in conclusion about
Speaker 2: you know, tonight's discussion or the files in general thus far. Obviously,
Speaker 2: stay tuned to Larry's blog, Larryhancock dot com, Larry dash
Speaker 2: Handcock dot com. And also I have a funny feeling
Speaker 2: that Wallstreet Window dot Com might produce a piece or
Speaker 2: two that might have something to do with one of
Speaker 2: these things. Mike just might be inspired to write about it,
Speaker 2: I'm guessing, but you never know, Mike might be inspired
Speaker 2: to write about it. Maybe I'll publish it on ochelli
Speaker 2: dot com as well. But because we are doing that
Speaker 2: front page thing there, and I am soliciting authors, and
Speaker 2: I've got quite a few submissions and even a handful
Speaker 2: on this particular topic which are going to go on
Speaker 2: the front page, maybe sooner than April seventh. I was
Speaker 2: planning on starting on April seventh with the first post,
Speaker 2: but we shall see. Larry, what would you like to
Speaker 2: do to tie a bow around this particular audio presentation.
Speaker 1: I'm positive about it. I think Mike had said it earlier,
Speaker 1: this release of the whole thing as a unit, especially
Speaker 1: because the plan is, and I'll say right now, Mary
Speaker 1: Farrell Foundation is going to bring it over the whole
Speaker 1: thing from Nara and put it behind a search engine,
Speaker 1: which will make it much more searchable. Rex has already
Speaker 1: done some of that. For as historians, this is a
Speaker 1: goal mine, okay, regardless of the smoking gun thing. Just
Speaker 1: as far as pure history, it's a goal mine. So
Speaker 1: that's positive. As far as misinformation, disinformation. We could hardly
Speaker 1: have more. So that doesn't scare me. It's promoting some
Speaker 1: dialogue and Chuck, you said it to me up to now.
Speaker 1: I'm willing to accept a double edged sword because I
Speaker 1: don't think we had a single edged sword. So I
Speaker 1: would say, go for it.
Speaker 2: See at least something is happening, as opposed to no progress.
Speaker 3: And you know the very.
Speaker 2: Limited twenty seventeen and then what the Biden administration did
Speaker 2: I think in twenty twenty, if that's accurate, I forget,
Speaker 2: but sometime during his presidency, and this is what sparked
Speaker 2: a lawsuit from Mary Ferrell, because there is still I
Speaker 2: think it's still active, actually, the lawsuit against the US
Speaker 2: government regarding non compliance with the JFK Records Collection Acting.
Speaker 2: By the way, I would state also, and I just
Speaker 2: want to get a yes or a note from you guys,
Speaker 2: and then we'll close this out to this point, regardless
Speaker 2: of what your views are, politics, etc.
Speaker 4: Etc.
Speaker 2: I would say that we still have a variety of
Speaker 2: agencies in the government in general in non compliance with
Speaker 2: its own law, which is the JFK Records Collection Act. Legally,
Speaker 2: we've seen lots of different non compliance in my opinion,
Speaker 2: including the fact that when the intelligence agencies went to
Speaker 2: Trump in the first place to ask for the delay,
Speaker 2: they didn't follow the guidelines for how it is you
Speaker 2: even asked for the damn delay. You know, they didn't
Speaker 2: say specifically this item because they didn't do any of that.
Speaker 2: They just gave a general thing. And look, Trump is
Speaker 2: very transactional. Is supporter or not? You got to admit that.
Speaker 2: So the thing is, he went with it. He went
Speaker 2: with his best advice. Maybe it was Mike Pompeo that
Speaker 2: advised him. I don't know, not saying that I know
Speaker 2: any of the ins and outs of what's in the
Speaker 2: man's mind. All I'm saying is that we definitely have
Speaker 2: seen non compliance from the government, regardless of who's allegedly
Speaker 2: in charge.
Speaker 3: Okay, So I think that we have.
Speaker 2: A long way to go regarding the government complying with
Speaker 2: its own mandates and laws here regarding the JFK Records
Speaker 2: Collection Act. So I was wondering what you think about
Speaker 2: that if we have more compliance to be had and
Speaker 2: therefore more information to be gotten or not, or you
Speaker 2: think this will put a cap on it all, maybe
Speaker 2: public interest will die off. Whatever, So your opinion. I'll
Speaker 2: start with Larry and finish with Mike.
Speaker 1: I don't think there will be any automatic compliance it is.
Speaker 1: I don't think if anybody had been forcing the issue
Speaker 1: that the FBI would have looked and found whatever it
Speaker 1: found in those twenty three hundred documents. If somebody, I
Speaker 1: think is very much like we saw before when Enpick
Speaker 1: found the first set of zuppruterer for boards in the closet.
Speaker 1: The guy went to his boss and said, Boss, what
Speaker 1: should I do with this? And the boss said, oh God,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't have those anymore.
Speaker 3: Destroy him.
Speaker 1: I think if somebody turned up at the agency, inside
Speaker 1: the agency and tried to surface something new, it's doom
Speaker 1: from the start. So my view is unless you have
Speaker 1: some kind of forced compliance from the top down, we're done.
Speaker 2: See and Mike, I passed the same question to you
Speaker 2: with one addendum, which is this, is it possible that
Speaker 2: our double edged sword, though here might cut in the
Speaker 2: direction of people not even knowing the gravity of what
Speaker 2: it is. They could release maybe somebody just for political reasons.
Speaker 2: We'll try to comply a bit more, but only with
Speaker 2: public pressure. I mean, what are your thoughts on compliance
Speaker 2: so far and what we could see in the future.
Speaker 2: Might just in general your opinion.
Speaker 4: I've kind of lost my train of thought.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. I do that to people. My my bad.
Speaker 1: He does that. Mikey does that to me all the time.
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 2: And Larry is such a great thinker, and I derail
Speaker 2: his trane of thought constantly.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, Mike, my apologies.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 5: I I wonder if there is a political agenda at
Speaker 5: work in this. Trump asked for the you know, I
Speaker 5: buy out of every single CIA officer a couple of
Speaker 5: weeks ago or when he got in office, and I've
Speaker 5: read stories that he's trying to redirect then the targets
Speaker 5: of the CIA into the Western hemisphere and drug dealing
Speaker 5: and stuff, the you know. And I look at the
Speaker 5: National Security state since nine to eleven, and it's grown
Speaker 5: and grown and grown, right, And it looks to me
Speaker 5: like the D and I position that Tulca Gabbert had
Speaker 5: as that was created after nine to eleven, and it's
Speaker 5: doing what Alan Dalles used to do in the sense
Speaker 5: that the original job of the CIA director was supposed
Speaker 5: to be the top intelligence analyst person for the president,
Speaker 5: and now that's her job. So I'm not really sure
Speaker 5: what the CIA does anymore, right, And I wonder if
Speaker 5: what is going on or maybe part of what's going
Speaker 5: on is that the issue of the Kenny assassination and
Speaker 5: the bad look it gives to the CIA, it could
Speaker 5: be used for political reasons, you know, diminish the agency
Speaker 5: or perform it or get rid of it, or make
Speaker 5: some sort of changes.
Speaker 2: See that's exactly my final thought. And then yeah, I
Speaker 2: will played the close out music because this is this
Speaker 2: and we've been an hour and ten at it now,
Speaker 2: and that's quite a nuther.
Speaker 5: It may not be a bad thing, you know, it's not. Yeahah, yeah,
Speaker 5: absolutely not necessarily the historical the objective historian of let's
Speaker 5: get the exact, you know, closest to the truth we can.
Speaker 5: Well here's what isn't necessarily the same, but it can help.
Speaker 2: But but here's the thing for those of us that
Speaker 2: figure that, you know what, the CIA has had a
Speaker 2: long history of being dirty one way or another, whether
Speaker 2: you want to talk MK Ultra or you want to
Speaker 2: talk you know, the possible involvement with different Narco states,
Speaker 2: et cetera, regime change that we should have had no
Speaker 2: involvement in, et cetera. Look if if somebody wanted to
Speaker 2: get in Trump's here and tell them, look, you want
Speaker 2: to make a real legacy here for yourself, sir, how
Speaker 2: about you follow through on JFK threat and you make
Speaker 2: it very, very public knowledge. I'm going to smash the
Speaker 2: CIA into a thousand pieces and add to it to
Speaker 2: the win, because Trump is gonna do what JFK couldn't do.
Speaker 2: If somebody got that in his ear, we might see
Speaker 2: a hell of en upheaval in the national security state.
Speaker 2: But then again, you got fifteen agencies or so nowadays
Speaker 2: as opposed to the handful that used to exist.
Speaker 3: So I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know how that would turn out, but it
Speaker 2: would be a hell of an interesting show. And if
Speaker 2: he makes progress on it, what can I do but
Speaker 2: cheer him on personally myself.
Speaker 3: But that's just me again.
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock was with me, Mike Swanson was with me,
Speaker 2: both of them authors in their own right. Go to
Speaker 2: Wallstreet Window dot com, sign up for the newsletter, and
Speaker 2: just keep track of Larry's work his blog, as well
Speaker 2: as his various appearances in different places larrydsh Hancock dot com,
Speaker 2: and I recommend every single book that Larry has put out,
Speaker 2: but most relevant and most recent would be the Oswald
Speaker 2: puzzle having to do with tonight's discussion Anyway. Links for
Speaker 2: all that will be in the show notes. And no
Speaker 2: matter who you are, where you are, when you are,
Speaker 2: remember I am merely O'Kelly, all of you.
Speaker 6: In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 6: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 6: operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In
Speaker 6: Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 7: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 7: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 7: really failed and why the United States did not earn
Speaker 7: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 7: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 7: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 7: In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock.
Speaker 7: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 3: Pick up your copy of.
Speaker 7: In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical form.
Speaker 8: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 8: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 8: the context of the Times and reveals never before published
Speaker 8: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 8: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 8: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 8: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 8: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 8: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 8: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 8: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 8: island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 8: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 8: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 8: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 8: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 8: up against.
Speaker 3: For more information The War State.
Speaker 9: Dot Com dot Com Radio, Chili dot Com.
Speaker 7: The views expressed by caller stools there anyone else who
Speaker 7: happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com,
Speaker 7: You not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly dot com
Speaker 7: or Joe o'chilli and we are not responsible.
Speaker 3: We're getting stupidity which might ensue.
Speaker 7: Thank you, yo yo. This Doug Campbell, host of the
Speaker 7: Dallas Action podcast presented by Wall Street Window, and you
Speaker 7: are listening to the o'chill effect revelation through conversation