HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Kid Berwyn » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 34 Next »

Kid Berwyn

Profile Information

Member since: Mon May 6, 2019, 07:01 PM
Number of posts: 10,557

Journal Archives

Epstein woke up during one to find an ex-cop's hands around his throat.

Nicholas Taglione, shared a cell with Epstein, accused of a quadruple homicide…



Nicholas Tartaglione denied making the marks on Epstein’s neck when that friend of princes and presidents was found unresponsive in his cell the first time.

https://yonkerstimes.com/dirty-westchester-ex-cop-is-epsteins-cell-mate/

Like AG Bill Barr said, I was appalled.

But not as much as when I heard Bill Barr’s dad HIRED UNQUALIFIED EPSTEIN to teach at an exclusive prep school...

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/donald-barr/

Where'd you get that from my post?

Here’s a sampling of what I’ve posted on the subject:

Why Trump wishes Ghislaine well.

"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."



A prominent Epstein victim, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, says his ex-girlfriend and alleged "madam," Ghislaine Maxwell, recruited her into Epstein's sex trafficking operation when she worked as a locker room attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 1999, when she was 15.

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-and-trump-mar-a-lago-resort-connections


Three Big Pols Who Won't Miss Jeffrey Epstein.

1.) William Barr — US Attorney General Barr’s dad Donald Barr hired Epstein to teach at The Dalton School, decades later he would oversee Epstein’s arrest and incarceration.

2.) Alexander Acosta — When serving as a US Attorney, former Secretary of Labor Acosta arranged a most lenient plea deal that served to protect child sexual predator Epstein from his accusers and justice.

3.) Donald Trump — Trump partied hearty with Epstein and his entourage, selected Acosta to head the Department of Labor which investigates sex trafficking, and hired Barr to cover up things that include the Mueller Report.


Roy Cohn was their friend, too.



The Ghost of Roy Cohn

BY TERRY MELANSON · AUGUST 24, 2014

EXCERPT...

In an interview with former NYPD detective James Rothstein, this author discovered that such operations do exist and go far back into America’s secret history. Rothstein is no conspiracy theorist. He is a legend in American law enforcement and speaks from experience. Furthermore, he gave me two notable examples from his time as a detective. Rothstein had an opportunity to have a sit-down with infamous McCarthy committee counsel Roy Cohn. During this sit-down, Cohn admitted to Rothstein that he was part of a rather elaborate sexual blackmail operation that compromised politicians with child prostitutes (Rothstein, no pagination). Cohn told Rothstein that this operation was being carried out as part of the anticommunist crusade of the time (no pagination).

Rothstein also had an opportunity to speak to infamous Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis. During this conversation, Sturgis revealed one of the reasons for breaking into the Watergate. According to Sturgis, there was a “Pedophile Book” hidden away at the Democratic National Committee headquarters (no pagination). The book was supposed to have a list of pedophiles on the American political scene (no pagination). One can only imagine the power G. Gordon Liddy would have held over the government if he had such a book in his possession.

I asked Rothstein if Roy Cohn was a real anticommunist or just using the fear of communism to justify his sex ring. It seemed like a fair question. After all, Cohn had argued against homosexuals being schoolteachers when he himself was a homosexual. Perhaps Cohn’s hypocrisy extended to his anticommunism. Rothstein made it clear that Cohn was a genuine anticommunist (no pagination). Anticommunist sentiments aside, evidence suggests that the sex ring operation started by Cohn was used for more than fighting the threat of domestic communists. Fugitive ex-CIA officer Frank Terpil has claimed that sexual blackmailing operations directed by the CIA were intensive in Washington during the Watergate era (DeCamp 179). Terpil also asserts that his former partner, Ed Wilson, was coordinating one of these sexual blackmail operations (179). In a letter to author Jim Hougan, Terpil revealed Wilson’s modus operandi:

“Historically, one of Wilson’s Agency jobs was to subvert members of both houses [of Congress] by any means necessary…. Certain people could be easily coerced by living out their sexual fantasies in the flesh…. A remembrance of these occasions [was] permanently recorded via selected cameras…. The technicians in charge of filming… were TSD [Technical Services Division of the CIA]. The unwitting porno stars advanced in their political careers, some of [whom] may still be in office.” (Qtd. in DeCamp 179)

According to John DeCamp, a former Nebraska Senator and Vietnam War hero, Wilson’s operation was merely a continuation of the one set up by Cohn (179). When I asked James Rothstein if Palfrey’s outfit was a continuation of the sexual blackmail rings that began with Cohn, he answered in the affirmative (Rothstein, pagination). The NYPD veteran made it clear that Palfrey’s outfit could not exist in Washington unless it was a tool for the power elite and sinister factions of the intelligence community (no pagination). Somewhere in a Queens cemetery, the corpse of a high-powered attorney is smiling in his grave.

SOURCE:

https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/08/24/the-ghost-of-roy-cohn/



Please go there.



Rupert Murdoch, who has a long history of paying $millions to cover-up the sexual abuse and harassment of women at Fox News, is pictured with Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell below which points to them possibly being friends. But what is more interesting is that Jeffrey Epstein had Rupert Murdoch’s private contact details in his black book which was revealed in 2015 court proceedings.

https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2019/08/13/was-rupert-murdoch-involved-in-the-jeffrey-epstein-paedophile-scandal-given-his-details-were-in-epsteins-black-book/


Fox News regrets 'mistakenly' editing Donald Trump out of photo with Jeffrey Epstein



Fox News on Monday confirmed that the network had edited President Donald Trump out of a photo in which he appeared with convicted sexual offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The incident occurred during a broadcast on Sunday covering the arrest of Epstein confidant Ghislaine Maxwell.

Continues...

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/fox-news-regrets-mistakenly-editing-donald-trump-out-of-photo-with-jeffrey-epstein/

Gee.That seems a pretty bad editing uh miscue. Fox shoulda asked DU.



I read Epstein introduced the current Trumps. Maybe Ghislaine can confirm.




Welcome to DU, Good egg. What have you posted about Epstein and organized child predation? I’ll be sure to look out for your future contributions to the discussion.

That's only, like, a million Celsius.

Denigrating Warren Commission critics is why CIA invented the term.

CIA memo: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

CIA Instructions to Media Assets


This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.



RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Copy of actual memo: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=24678&search=concerning_criticism+of+the+warren+report#relPageId=1&tab=page



The Might Wurlitzer played an Oswald Did It tune while the story of CIA bigwigs in bed with Mafia Murder Inc. was never mentioned.

Great to have a President who shares what he says to Putin.

10 Points of Tension between Putin and Biden

U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin will speak by video link on Tuesday.


https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ten-points-tension-between-putin-biden-2021-12-06/



The last one kept their conversations secret.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/04/trump-has-spoken-privately-with-putin-least-times-heres-what-we-know-about-conversations/

General Traitors

Leaked memo: Ex-D.C. guardsman says Michael Flynn’s brother lied about Jan. 6

Former Guard official accuses Gen. Charles Flynn of “outright perjury” in cover-up of military's riot response


By IGOR DERYSH
Salon, DECEMBER 6, 2021

A former D.C. National Guard official accused two top Army officials, including Gen. Charles Flynn, the brother of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, of lying to Congress about the military response to the Jan. 6 riot, according to a leaked memo obtained by Politico.

Col. Earl Matthews, who served in various high-level National Security Council and Pentagon positions in the Trump era, sent a 36-page memo to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection calling Gen. Charles Flynn, who was deputy chief of staff for operations at the time, and Lt. Gen Walter Piatt, the director of Army staff, "absolute and unmitigated liars" over their accounts of the day to Congress. The Army previously falsely denied that Charles Flynn, whose brother has spent months pushing election and QAnon conspiracy theories, was involved in the response before admitting that he was present during a "tense" phone call on which Capitol Police and D.C. officials pleaded with the Pentagon to send the National Guard to the Capitol.

The memo also criticizes the Pentagon's inspector general for issuing a report with "myriad inaccuracies, false or misleading statements, or examples of faulty analysis" in the office's investigation of the military response.

Matthews on Jan. 6 served as top attorney to then-D.C. National Guard chief Maj. Gen. William Walker, who has since been appointed the House sergeant at arms. The memo backs up Walker's testimony to Congress about an hours-long delay in the Army's call to deploy the D.C. National Guard to the Capitol.

"Every leader in the D.C. Guard wanted to respond and knew they could respond to the riot at the seat of government" before the order was finally given, Matthews wrote. But D.C. guardsmen instead sat "stunned watching in the Armory" as the Capitol came under siege.

Continues…

https://www.salon.com/2021/12/06/leaked-memo-ex-dc-guardsman-says-michael-flynns-brother-lied-about-jan-6/

Traitors, more than a couple in uniform, too.

New York City has more people than 37 states.

Their problems may be different, but they’re both due to bastard billionaire tax dodgers and their fascist henchmen.

Genau.

You are welcome! Truman added...

Merle Miller: Mr. President, I know that you were responsible as President for setting up the CIA. How do you feel about it now?

Truman: I think it was a mistake. And if I'd know what was going to happen, I never would have done it.

The head of the Austrian-Libertarian Think Tank wrote down the story:



Truman Was Right About the CIA

by Jeff Deist
Mises Institute, March 8, 2017

Excerpt…

Unfortunately it was only in hindsight that Truman came to see the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" at work, which posits that all organizations-- particularly government bureaucracies-- eventually fall under the control of an elite few. That elite, he came to understand, did not include the president or his cabinet:

Truman: But it got out of hand. The fella ... the one that was in the White House after me never paid any attention to it, and it got out of hand. Why, they've got an organization over there in Virginia now that is practically the equal of the Pentagon in many ways. And I think I've told you, one Pentagon is one too many.

Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don't just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there's nobody to keep track of what they're up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they'll have something to report on. They've become ... it's become a government all of its own and all secret. They don't have to account to anybody.

That's a very dangerous thing in a democratic society, and it's got to be put a stop to. The people have got a right to know what those birds are up to. And if I was back in the White House, people would know. You see, the way a free government works, there's got to be a housecleaning every now and again, and I don't care what branch of the government is involved. Somebody has to keep an eye on things.

And when you can't do any housecleaning because everything that goes on is a damn secret, why, then we're on our way to something the Founding Fathers didn't have in mind. Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix. And if what happened at the Bay of Pigs doesn't prove that, I don't know what does. You have got to keep an eye on the military at all times, and it doesn't matter whether it's the birds in the Pentagon or the birds in the CIA.


This is a remarkable statement by Truman, even if delivered during a relatively unguarded moment with a trusted biographer. It shows a humility and willingness to admit grave error that is lacking in public life today. It also stands on its own as a inadvertent libertarian argument against state power itself.

Continues…

https://mises.org/wire/truman-was-right-about-cia



Don’t agree with their approach to Econ, but I think the guy’s pegged the problem.

After JFK assassination, President Truman put his concerns about CIA in print.

One month after the assassination, President Harry S Truman expressed public concern CIA had strayed off the reservation from intelligence gathering of foreign news sources to cloak-and-dagger operations.



Limit CIA Role To Intelligence

By Harry S Truman
The Washington Post, December 22, 1963 - page A11

INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.

I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.

Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.

But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.

Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization 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.

I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.

Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."

For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.

I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

SOURCE: http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html



That would be better known, but for some reason it got left out of the afternoon edition and out of most all of the nation’s other newspapers.

To put some emphasis on Truman’s essay, former CIA Director Allen Dulles tried to get a retraction:



Are Presidents Afraid of the CIA?

By Ray McGovern
December 29, 2009

Excerpt…

Fox Guarding Hen House

The well-connected Dulles got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK’s assassination.

Documents in the Truman Library show that he then mounted a small domestic covert action of his own to neutralize any future airing of Truman’s and Souers’s warnings about covert action.

So important was this to Dulles that he invented a pretext to get himself invited to visit Truman in Independence, Missouri. On the afternoon of April 17, 1964, Dulles spent a half-hour trying to get the former President to retract what he had said in his op-ed. No dice, said Truman.

No problem, thought Dulles. Four days later, in a formal memo for his old buddy Lawrence Houston, CIA General Counsel from 1947 to 1973, Dulles fabricated a private retraction, claiming that Truman told him the Washington Post article was “all wrong,” and that Truman “seemed quite astounded at it.”

No doubt Dulles thought it might be handy to have such a memo in CIA files, just in case.

A fabricated retraction? It certainly seems so, because Truman did not change his tune. Far from it.

In a June 10, 1964, letter to the managing editor of Look magazine, for example, Truman restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in “strange activities.”

CONTINUED...

SOURCE: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/122909b.html



Truman did not point a finger of blame at CIA, the Mafia or anyone. However, it is difficult to think of an innocent explanation for Mr. Dulles’ response and actions — months before he would be appointed to the Warren Commission.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 34 Next »