John Fitzgerald Kennedy, de samenzwering tot moord in 5 video's: geen theorie >> de echte samenzweringstheorie is dat hij 'werd vermoord door Lee Harvey Oswald'

Brasscheck TV bracht de afgelopen weken 4 artikelen en video's over de moord op John F. Kennedy (JFK), op 22 november jl. 55 jaar geleden. Hierbij gaat Brasscheck TV in op de volgende punten:

• Het feest van de samenzweerders de avond voor de moord op Kennedy met H.L. Hunt ('olietycoon'), J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon en Lyndon B. Johnson, ten huize van 'olietycoon' C. Murchison.
• De voorbereiding van het volk op de aanstaande moord op Kennedy.
• Wat gebeurde er met de getuigen
• De strijd om het lijk van Kennedy na de moord, waarbij bewijsmateriaal verdween. Voorts de vreemde samenstelling van de stoet voorafgaand aan de moord.
• Het 'korte proces' tegen Lee Harvey Oswald, die ook door de media zonder enige kritiek werd aangewezen als de moordenaar.

Afgelopen week hoorde ik op BBC World Service radio nog eens de officiële lezing van de moord op Kennedy, waar men de officiële gelogen lezing over de gang van zaken nog steeds volgt, terwijl het overduidelijk is dat het de moord op Kennedy 'de vrucht is' van een echte samenzwering en niet een theorie, zoals de CIA al snel na de moord de wereld inhielp..... (de CIA noemde de twijfels aan de officiële lezing een 'samenzweringstheorie', hiermee werd deze term zelfs geïntroduceerd......)

Uit het volgende blijkt nogmaals dat niet alleen het militair-industrieel complex een groot belang had en heeft bij het voeren van oorlog, ook de oliemaffia had en heeft daar belang bij >> destijds ging het om de oorlog tegen Noord-Vietnam, die Kennedy zou hebben willen afblazen, daarnaast was er nog veel meer haat tegen hem, o.a. vanwege het Varkensbaai-incident in 1961, de poging om de Cubaanse revolutionaire regering omver te werpen....).......

The big party before the JFK assassination

Where were H.L. Hunt, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon B. Johnson the night before the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Witnesses put them all together as a party at the home of Clint Murchison, the Texas oil tycoon who controlled local law enforcement and J. Edgar Hoover.

THE PARTY BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION

AND THE MISSING FINGERPRINT

THERE’S NO MYSTERY HERE, NEVER WAS

The meeting in Dallas the night before the assassination included:

H.L. Hunt
J. Edgar Hoover
Richard Nixon
Lyndon B. Johnson

…At the home of Clint Murchison, the Texas oil tycoon.

Murchison owned J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson, and State of Texas law enforcement and stood to lose a fortune if Kennedy changed the oil depletion allowance and faced the very real possibility of jail time should then-Vice President Johnson be indicted, which gave the appearance of being a certainty.

Nixon and others involved claimed not to remember where he was that night.

The fingerprint found in the Book Depository sniper’s nest and suppressed by the FBI belonged to LBJ’s henchman who was convicted in at least one murder and was suspected of committing several others on Johnson’s behalf.

But it doesn’t matter who did what, what weapon they used, and what position they fired from.

That’s like asking which janitor they sent and whether he used a wire or nylon brush.

The mountains of minutia, endless conferences, books and assassination experts including Oliver Stone’s artfully loopy movie all obscure the basic points.

1. The CIA was facing a thorough gutting at the hands of Kennedy as were their close colleagues in organized crime and the oil industry

2. The Pentagon and the scumbags who supply them were facing the loss of billions upon billion of of dollars in profits and payoffs if Kennedy turned off the Vietnam gravy train.

3. Hoover and Johnson knew each other very well, hated Kennedy and had very strong self-preservation reasons to want him dead. Both had been involved in political murders separately – and were to collaborate on future ones.

Recall that Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were both assassinated during the Johnson-Hoover regime and that Johnson was the president during the infamous USS Liberty incident. Robert Kennedy, like his brother, and Martin Luther King were murdered after they started talking against war in Vietnam. Another too rarely mentioned connection.)

These people – the CIA, organized crime, the Pentagon, Hoover and Johnson – were all murderers and they did what murderers do.

With Hoover in charge of the FBI and Johnson in control of the Federal government and Texas law enforcement, there was no investigation of the crime and any evidence that contradicted the manufactured “lone nut” theory was altered and in some cases outright destroyed.

Ongoing media suppression was carried out by the CIA and the cooperative and craven US news media.

It didn’t matter how good or bad your evidence is if you don’t control the process and it’s the new leader who controls the process.

Attorney Allen Dulles, the CIA head who supervised numerous coups and assassinations in other countries and had a grudge against Kennedy for firing him, understood this simple principle better than anyone.

That’s it. The beginning, middle and end of the story.

Discussions about the minutia of the specific mechanics of the operation are nothing more than a distraction and far off the key points which are:

1. When push comes to shove, the military-industrial complex is in control of the US


2. A criminally minded CIA and organized crime figures in the US and abroad collaborate on projects of mutual interest (drug running, assassination, the suppression of dissent) on a daily basis as they have done since WW II.


3. The US news media – as well as the vast majority of academia – is an impotent joke.

These are the three elements that have guided and controlled the US since Kennedy’s assassination and they can, and continue to, get away with just about anything.

Preparing the public mind for the JFK Assassination

This is easily one of the strangest and most shocking "coincidences" of the JFK assassination.

A newscaster was handed this elaborate story to read just hours before Kennedy was killed.

PREPARING THE PUBLIC MIND

NORMALIZING THE IDEA OF PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSINATION

CREATING EXPECTATIONS

The week before Kennedy was assassinated the news media, national and local to Dallas, went into overdrive about two subjects:

1. How many people hated the Kennedys and wanted to do them harm

2. How “reckless” Kennedy was in not strictly following security protocols (a similar charge was made about his son’s adherence to aviation safety and who died in a highly mysterious plane accident just as he was about to enter political life.)

Just hours before Kennedy was murdered in cold blood, this bizarre script was read in the two and a half minutes before Kennedy took the stage for a breakfast talk in Fort Worth.

Just think of how strange this is.

Who would write such a script? Who would order it to be read before a presidential appearance?

Just a few hours after this live newscast Kennedy was assassinated by a “lone nut” just like the one described in the local Texas newsfeed.

What happened to witnesses of the JFK assassination?

You've probably heard that many eye witnesses to the Kennedy assassination had very short lives - after the assassination.

Here's the story of one of them: a plainclothes detective with the Dallas Police Department.

Mind blowing testimony.

WHY WEREN’T THERE ANY WITNESSES?

THERE WERE …DOZENS OF THEM HERE’S ONE THEY KILLED

NO EYEWITNESSES? BULLSHIT!

There were dozens of eyewitnesses to the Kennedy assassination including trained ones like police officers. They were ordered to keep their mouths shut about what they saw – and most did. Those who did not were warned, harassed, and if they were persistent enough, eliminated. One too-seldom discussed example. It was a hyperorganized coup, all in the name of the Vietnam War’s depopulation agenda.

The fight over Kennedy's body

exas law is pretty simple.

Anyone murdered in Texas – regardless of who he is - gets a Texas autopsy.

But when Kennedy was shot, the Secret Service stormed the hospital and literally battled Texas officials for the casket.

And that was only the beginning of the strangeness relating to the post-assassination handling of Kennedy's body.

STEALING JFK’S BODY

MAKING THE EVIDENCE GO AWAY

“WITH UNSEEMLY HASTE”

The Dallas police stood down.

The Secret Service stood down.

Kennedy’s car was put at the front of the procession (an absolute violation) and there were no guards to his side and back to protect him.

In spite of a heightened security alert, ALL normal security procedures were toned down.

The scores of eye witnesses who heard, and in some cases saw, shots from the right of the President’s car were ignored.

The rifle that was originally found in the Texas School Book Depository did not match the casings that were found there.

Then the President’s body, one of the most important pieces of evidence in the crime, was literally stolen from the lawful possession of the State of Texas and handed over to two grossly incompetent career Navy physicians who had no experience in pathology or performing autopsies.

That’s our story so far.

Can there possibly be any doubt that:

a) there was more than one shooter on the scene

b) those in charge of the local police and the Secret Service arranged things in such a way as to facilitate the shooting and

c) eye witnesses were discouraged from reporting and the forensic exam was deliberately botched to maintain the one man, one bullet theory

The short trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

What Lee Harvey Oswald said after he was arrested and how he was "convicted" by the news media and dishonest prosecutors and police.

THE SHORT TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD

TRIED BY THE PRESS, EXECUTED BY A FORMER NIXON EMPLOYEE

“NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG”

The last hours of the life of Lee Harvey Oswald before he was executed on live TV by Jack Ruby.

Jack Ruby was a gangster, a Chicago guy who was sent to Dallas to operate and who used a strip club as his headquarters where he interacted daily with Dallas police giving them free liquor and prostitutes.

Very rarely spoken about was his role as a major market maker for narcotics dealing in Dallas

Previous to that, in Chicago, he’d worked as an enforcer for the Hearst newspaper chain during the sometimes violent competition for shelf space on news stands.

In his spare time away from California’s race tracks which he was known to frequent, he also spent time as a “campaign worker” for Richard Nixon’s first Congressional campaign.

Jack Ruby at the nexus of organized crime, US politics, corrupt police, the illegal drug trade, and dishonest news media – and most probably the CIA that works closely with all these parties.

“Nothing to see here, move along”

More about Jack Ruby: https://riversong.wordpress.com/the-jack-ruby-connection/

====================================
Zie ook: 'Martin Luther King jr. vermoord door de overheid, aldus rechter........'

'JFK de moord: de macht van de geheime diensten gecombineerd met die van het militair-industrieel complex'

'J.F. Kennedy vermoord door Lyndon Johnson en z'n maten in misdaad, geheime diensten en politiek.....'

'Kabinet 'wil kunnen hacken', zonder daar melding van te maken.......... Hoe bedoelt u, 'politiestaat??'' 

Voor meer berichten over J.F. Kennedy klik op dat label, direct onder dit bericht.

Georganiseerde misdaad en overheid, wat is het verschil tussen die twee? Een uiterst hilarische lezing van Michael Parenti over de moord op JFK!

Brasscheck TV kwam afgelopen zaterdag met een lezing van Michael Parenti, waarin de vraag wordt beantwoord of er een verschil bestaat tussen georganiseerde misdaad en de politiek in de meeste landen.

Het zal je waarschijnlijk niet verbazen dat er amper of geen verschil is.

De staat is er vooral om de belangen van de welgestelden te beschermen en verdeeldheid te zaaien als minderheden of groepen die zich verzetten tegen onrecht of afbraak van het milieu, zich organiseren..... (verdeel en heers...) Waarnaast de gekleurde bevolking van de VS vanaf eind 60er jaren willens en wetens door de overheid werd volgepropt met drugs, dezelfde overheid die sinds begin 70er jaren zogenaamd een oorlog tegen drugs voert................

Dezelfde VS die er niet mee zit vooraanstaande leiders van minderheden te vermoorden, of zelfs een president te vermoorden, waar Parenti vooral spreekt over de moord op J.F. Kennedy. Parenti noemde de film JFK van Oliver Stone, de enige film die 6 maanden voordat deze werd uitgebracht al kritiek kreeg, o.a. van de reguliere (massa-) media in de VS, die de staat steunt waar het maar kan...... Diezelfde staat was van meet af bang aan voor deze film (gezien de kritiek die Stone keer op keer gaf op het 'land' dat zich de United States of America durft te noemen....... 

Of neem de houding van die massamedia (overigens ook in de rest van wat men het westen noemt), voorafgaand en tijdens de illegale oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië (wat betreft de laatste: de reden voor de VS een opstand te organiseren in Syrië en het land vol te proppen met terroristen en wapens, was Assad, die moest hoe dan ook weg...... De VS was al in 2006 bezig met de voorbereidingen daartoe....... Deze zaken moesten tijdens de lezing van Parenti nog plaatsvinden, de lezing dateert uit 1993.

Voorts gaat Parenti nog in op het begrip 'Deep State'.

Beluister deze geweldige en uiterst hilarische lezing waar Perenti, die zoals gezegd, vooral spreekt over de moord op J.F. Kennedy en de grote en belachelijke leugens die daar over werden verteld. Luister en oordeel zelf, althans als je nog niet overtuigd was van het feit dat de overheid achter de moord op JFK zat. Dit keer geen video, maar audio van Brasscheck:

The Gangster Nature of the State

MICHAEL PARENTI (1993)

Can someone tell me the difference between organized crime and most States including our own?

One analyst Michael Parenti examined the question and could not find any real difference. 

One of the best talks on this subject you'll ever hear. 

Assassination studies, Government corruption

“TOUGH, HILARIOUS, RIGHT-ON MIX OF SCHOLAR AND STREET”

Can someone tell me the difference between organized crime and most States including our own?

One analyst Michael Parenti examined the question and could not find any real difference.

“This tough, hilarious, right-on mix of scholar and street.” – KPFA-Pacifica, 1994

Michael Parenti was born and raised in an Italian-American working class family in New York City. After high school he worked for a number of years then returned to school, eventually earning a B.A. from City College of New York, an M.A. from Brown University, and a Ph.D. in political science from Yale University. His many books include The Face of Imperialism (2011); God and His Demons (2010); The Assassination of Julius Caesar (2003); and Democracy for the Few, 9th edition (2010). He recently published a warmly received “ethnic memoir” entitled Waiting for Yesterday: Pages from a Street Kid’s Life.

Portions of his writings have been translated into some twenty languages. Books and articles of his have been used extensively in college courses and also by lay readers. Over 550 articles of his have appeared in scholarly journals, political periodicals, various magazines, newspapers, books of collected readings, and online publications.

More about Parenti here: http://www.michaelparenti.org

================================

Zie ook: 'Martin Luther King jr. vermoord door de overheid, aldus rechter........'

       en: 'JFK de moord: de macht van de geheime diensten gecombineerd met die van het militair-industrieel complex'

       en: 'J.F. Kennedy vermoord door Lyndon Johnson en z'n maten in misdaad, geheime diensten en politiek.....'

       en: 'Kabinet 'wil kunnen hacken', zonder daar melding van te maken.......... Hoe bedoelt u, 'politiestaat??''

PS: het begrip 'conspiracy Theory' (samenzweringstheorie) is door de CIA geïntroduceerd na de moord op JFK, om zo het volk juist weg te houden van de smerige, stinkende waarheid.....

JFK de moord: de macht van de geheime diensten gecombineerd met die van het militair-industrieel complex

Het volgende artikel geschreven door Ray McGovern was nog niet gepubliceerd of Trump beloofde ook de rest van de JFK documenten vrij te geven, terwijl hij eerder onder druk van de CIA en NSA 300 pagina's achterhield.

Daarmee was de kop van het McGovern artikel achterhaald, al moeten we eerst nog zien, of Trump kan leveren, immers de geheime diensten hebben hem bijna volledig in hun macht gekregen met de Russia-gate leugens*.

Verder een artikel met alweer toch een aantal nieuwe feiten, waaruit de conclusie bijna niet is te vermijden dat de CIA heeft meegewerkt aan de moord op J.F. Kennedy, uiteraard in opdracht en samenwerking met het militair-industrieel complex. Kennedy was van plan de aanwezige troepen uit Zuid-Vietnam terug te trekken, dat zou deze industrie een paar miljard dollar aan winst kosten...... Uiteraard was de mislukte invasie op Cuba een stevige plank aan de doodskist van Kennedy, men heeft hem nooit vergeven dat hij geen troepen stuurde naar Cuba om de gevangen genomen militairen te bevrijden, sterker nog: Kennedy ontsloeg de verantwoordelijken voor het Bay of Pigs incident.....

Truman, de ex-president plaatste een maand na de moord op Kennedy een artikel in de Washington Post, waarin hij pleitte de macht van de CIA aan banden te leggen, dit werd niet herhaald in de late editie van deze krant en werd gemeden door de rest van de reguliere media in de VS, terwijl Truman NB de CIA had opgezet in 1947..........

Lees het volgende (verder) prima artikel:

The Deep State’s JFK Triumph Over Trump

October 30, 2017 at 9:27 am

Written by Ray McGovern

Fifty-four years after President Kennedy’s assassination, the CIA and FBI demanded more time to decide what secrets to keep hiding – and a chastened President Trump bowed to their power, observes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

(CN) — It was summer 1963 when a senior official of CIA’s operations directorate treated our Junior Officer Trainee (JOT) class to an unbridled rant against President John F. Kennedy. He accused JFK, among other things, of rank cowardice in refusing to send U.S. armed forces to bail out Cuban rebels pinned down during the CIA-launched invasion at the Bay of Pigs, blowing the chance to drive Cuba’s Communist leader Fidel Castro from power.

It seemed beyond odd that a CIA official would voice such scathing criticism of a sitting President at a training course for those selected to be CIA’s future leaders. I remember thinking to myself, “This guy is unhinged; he would kill Kennedy, given the chance.”

Our special guest lecturer looked a lot like E. Howard Hunt, but more than a half-century later, I cannot be sure it was he. Our notes from such training/indoctrination were classified and kept under lock and key.

At the end of our JOT orientation, we budding Agency leaders had to make a basic choice between joining the directorate for substantive analysis or the operations directorate where case officers run spies and organize regime changes (in those days, we just called the process overthrowing governments).

I chose the analysis directorate and, once ensconced in the brand new headquarters building in Langley, Virginia, I found it strange that subway-style turnstiles prevented analysts from going to the “operations side of the house,” and vice versa. Truth be told, we were never one happy family.

I cannot speak for my fellow analysts in the early 1960s, but it never entered my mind that operatives on the other side of the turnstiles might be capable of assassinating a President – the very President whose challenge to do something for our country had brought many of us to Washington in the first place. But, barring the emergence of a courageous whistleblower-patriot like Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden, I do not expect to live long enough to learn precisely who orchestrated and carried out the assassination of JFK.

And yet, in a sense, those particulars seem less important than two main lessons learned: (1) If a President can face down intense domestic pressure from the power elite and turn toward peace with perceived foreign enemies, then anything is possible. The darkness of Kennedy’s murder should not obscure the light of that basic truth; and (2) There is ample evidence pointing to a state execution of a President willing to take huge risks for peace. While no post-Kennedy president can ignore that harsh reality, it remains possible that a future President with the vision and courage of JFK might beat the odds – particularly as the American Empire disintegrates and domestic discontent grows.

I do hope to be around next April after the 180-day extension for release of the remaining JFK documents. But – absent a gutsy whistleblower – I wouldn’t be surprised to see in April, a Washington Post banner headline much like the one that appeared Saturday: “JFK files: The promise of revelations derailed by CIA, FBI.”

The New Delay Is the Story

You might have thought that almost 54 years after Kennedy was murdered in the streets of Dallas – and after knowing for a quarter century the supposedly final deadline for releasing the JFK files – the CIA and FBI would not have needed a six-month extension to decide what secrets that they still must hide.

Journalist Caitlin Johnstone hits the nail on the head in pointing out that the biggest revelation from last week’s limited release of the JFK files is “the fact that the FBI and CIA still desperately need to keep secrets about something that happened 54 years ago.”

What was released on Oct. 26, was a tiny fraction of what had remained undisclosed in the National Archives. To find out why, one needs to have some appreciation of a 70-year-old American political tradition that might be called “fear of the spooks.”

That the CIA and FBI are still choosing what we should be allowed to see concerning who murdered John Kennedy may seem unusual, but there is hoary precedent for it.  After JFK’s assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the well-connected Allen Dulles, whom Kennedy had fired as CIA director after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK’s murder.

By becoming de facto head of the Commission, Dulles was perfectly placed to protect himself and his associates, if any commissioners or investigators were tempted to question whether Dulles and the CIA played any role in killing Kennedy. When a few independent-minded journalists did succumb to that temptation, they were immediately branded – you guessed it – “conspiracy theorists.”

And so, the big question remains: Did Allen Dulles and other “cloak-and-dagger” CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedy’s assassination and subsequent cover-up? In my view and the view of many more knowledgeable investigators, the best dissection of the evidence on the murder appears in James Douglass’s 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.

After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes that the answer to the big question is Yes. Reading Douglass’s book today may help explain why so many records are still withheld from release, even in redacted form, and why, indeed, we may never see them in their entirety.

Truman: CIA a Frankenstein?

When Kennedy was assassinated, it must have occurred to former President Harry Truman, as it did to many others, that the disgraced Allen Dulles and his associates might have conspired to get rid of a President they felt was soft on Communism – and dismissive of the Deep State of that time. Not to mention their vengeful desire to retaliate for Kennedy’s response to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. (Firing Allen Dulles and other CIA paragons of the Deep State for that fiasco simply was not done.)

Exactly one month after John Kennedy was killed, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Harry Truman titled “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.” The first sentence read, “I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency.”

Strangely, the op-ed appeared only in the Post’s early edition on Dec. 22, 1963. It was excised from that day’s later editions and, despite being authored by the President who was responsible for setting up the CIA in 1947, the all-too-relevant op-ed was ignored in all other major media.

Truman clearly believed that the spy agency had lurched off in what Truman thought were troubling directions. He began his op-ed by underscoring “the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency … and what I expected it to do.” It would be “charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without Department ‘treatment’ or interpretations.”

Truman then moved quickly to one of the main things clearly bothering him. He wrote “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.”

It was not difficult to see this as a reference to how one of the agency’s early directors, Allen Dulles, tried to trick President Kennedy into sending U.S. forces to rescue the group of invaders who had landed on the beach at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 with no chance of success, absent the speedy commitment of U.S. air and ground support. The planned mouse-trapping of the then-novice President Kennedy had been underpinned by a rosy “analysis” showing how this pin-prick on the beach would lead to a popular uprising against Fidel Castro.

Wallowing in the Bay of Pigs

Arch-Establishment figure Allen Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy, on entering office, had the temerity to question the CIA’s Bay of Pigs plans, which had been set in motion under President Dwight Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would not approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles set out, with supreme confidence, to give the President no choice except to send U.S. troops to the rescue.

Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. In his notes, Dulles explained that, “when the chips were down,” Kennedy would be forced by “the realities of the situation” to give whatever military support was necessary “rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”

The “enterprise” which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate Castro, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to how Castro’s patrons in Moscow might react eventually. (The next year, the Soviets agreed to install nuclear missiles in Cuba as a deterrent to future U.S. aggression, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis).

In 1961, the reckless Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom then-Deputy Secretary of State George Ball later described as a “sewer of deceit,” relished any chance to confront the Soviet Union and give it, at least, a black eye. (One can still smell the odor from that sewer in many of the documents released last week.)

But Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak. A few months after the abortive invasion of Cuba — and his refusal to send the U.S. military to the rescue — Kennedy fired Dulles and his co-conspirators and told a friend that he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Clearly, the outrage was mutual.

When JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters came out, the mainstream media had an allergic reaction and gave it almost no reviews. It is a safe bet, though, that Barack Obama was given a copy and that this might account in some degree for his continual deference – timorousness even – toward the CIA.

Could fear of the Deep State be largely why President Obama felt he had to leave the Cheney/Bush-anointed CIA torturers, kidnappers and black-prison wardens in place, instructing his first CIA chief, Leon Panetta, to become, in effect, the agency’s lawyer rather than take charge? Is this why Obama felt he could not fire his clumsily devious Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who had to apologize to Congress for giving “clearly erroneous” testimony under oath in March 2013? Does Obama’s fear account for his allowing then-National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander and counterparts in the FBI to continue to mislead the American people, even though the documents released by Edward Snowden showed them – as well as Clapper – to be lying about the government’s surveillance activities?

Is this why Obama fought tooth and nail to protect CIA Director John Brennan by trying to thwart publication of the comprehensive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of CIA torture, which was

based on original Agency cables, emails, and headquarters memos? [See here and here.]

The Deep State Today

Many Americans cling to a comforting conviction that the Deep State is a fiction, at least in a “democracy” like the United States. References to the enduring powers of the security agencies and other key bureaucracies have been essentially banned by the mainstream media, which many other suspicious Americans have come to see as just one more appendage of the Deep State.

But occasionally the reality of how power works pokes through in some unguarded remark by a Washington insider, someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, the Senate Minority Leader with 36 years of experience in Congress. As Senate Minority Leader, he also is an ex officio member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to oversee the intelligence agencies.

During a Jan. 3, 2017 interview with MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow, Schumer told Maddow nonchalantly about the dangers awaiting President-elect Donald Trump if he kept on “taking on the intelligence community.” She and Schumer were discussing Trump’s sharp tweeting regarding U.S. intelligence and evidence of “Russian hacking” (which both Schumer and Maddow treat as flat fact).

Schumer said: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.  So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

Three days after that interview, President Obama’s intelligence chiefs released a nearly evidence-free “assessment” claiming that the Kremlin engaged in a covert operation to put Trump into office, fueling a “scandal” that has hobbled Trump’s presidency. On Monday, Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted Trump’s one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort on unrelated money laundering, tax and foreign lobbying charges, apparently in the hope that Manafort will provide incriminating evidence against Trump.

So, President Trump has been in office long enough to have learned how the game is played and the “six ways from Sunday” that the intelligence community has for “getting back at you.” He appears to be as intimidated as was President Obama.

Trump’s awkward acquiescence in the Deep State’s last-minute foot-dragging regarding release of the JFK files is simply the most recent sign that he, too, is under the thumb of what the Soviets used to call “the organs of state security.”

Ray McGovern works with the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  During his 27-year career at CIA, he prepared the President’s Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and conducted the one-on-one morning briefings from 1981 to 1985.  He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

By Ray McGovern / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

===============================================

* Zie o.a.: 'Walls Closing in on Russiagate Conspiracy Theorists: Evidence Mounts That DNC Emails Provided to WikiLeaks By Inside Source' en: 'WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Drops Russiagate Shell!!!' (video).

Zie ook: 'Martin Luther King jr. vermoord door de overheid, aldus rechter........'

       en: 'J.F. Kennedy vermoord door Lyndon Johnson en z'n maten in misdaad, geheime diensten en politiek.....'

       en: 'Georganiseerde misdaad en overheid, wat is het verschil tussen die twee? Een uiterst hilarische lezing van Michael Parenti over de moord op JFK!'     

       en: 'Newsweek erkent 'false flag' operatie van de VS tegen de Sovjet Unie......'

       en: 'Kabinet 'wil kunnen hacken', zonder daar melding van te maken.......... Hoe bedoelt u, 'politiestaat??''

Zie ook de volgende links, die weliswaar niets met Kennedy te maken hebben maar die wel aangeven hoe groot de macht de reguliere VS media en vooral de geheime diensten hebben, iets dat weer eens goed duidelijk werd door de leugens over 'Russiagate' (alleen dat woord is al een leugen op zich en werd voor het eerst gebruikt voor de Russische oligarchen die eind 90er jaren hun geld witwasten in het westen):
             'Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump........' (een vervolg op het bovenstaande bericht)

       en: 'Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election'

       en: 'FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information'

       en: 'Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election'

       en: 'Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media'

       en: 'CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

       en: 'Russische 'hacks' door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence'

       en: 'Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

       en: 'Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen........'

       en: 'Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump'

       en: 'Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media'

       en: 'Russische 'hacks' door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence'

       en: ''Russiagate' een verhaal van a t/m z westers 'fake news.....''

       en: 'New York Times met schaamteloze anti-Russische propaganda en 'fake news....''

       en: 'BBC World Service: Rusland heeft VS verkiezingen gemanipuleerd....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

       en: 'Hoe Clinton en haar team de wereld op scherp hebben gezet >> Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?'

       en: 'Brekend nieuws: door Rusland betaalde reclames van Shell, Calvé pindakaas, AH boerenkool en Hema worst >> doel Rutte 3 ten val te brengen!!!'

PS: Kennedy en dan met name zijn broer Robert gingen ook behoorlijk tekeer tegen de maffia en volgens een aantal deskundigen zou de maffia hebben samengewerkt met de geheime dienst. Lee Harvey Oswald, die Kennedy als zou hebben vermoord, werd door Jack Ruby doodgeschoten, deze zou lid van de maffia zijn geweest of daar hechte banden mee hebben gehad.........