On the day of the JFK documents release, I was sitting at home, listening to the radio, and going through my emails folders pulling articles for this week's set of blogs. While I was listening to the radio, I noticed what appeared to me to be a "trend": many shows were interviewing people who were ... well, let's just say, on the side of the horribly flawed "official narrative" of the Warren Report. I couldn't help but think and feel as if a "spin" was already being put out the moment that President Trump decided to release the files.
Frankly, my own reaction to the documents releases was a big "so what", and that for the simple reason that this source - i.e., the government and its various archives - is a tainted source. Documents can be removed, "sanitized," and even false documents planted. After all, intelligence agencies have whole departments simply for the creation of fake documents and planting false information, disinformation, or misinformation. It's all part of "their job," it's their "mission brief" to tell lies, sew doubts and confusions into grand tapestries of deception, and concoct fairy tales. The real story of the JFK assassination may never be known completely, but it is substantially known, thanks to an army of researchers over the years: Jim Marrs, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Mae Brussel, Harold Weiss, Dave Talbott... the list is very long, and while one may not agree with each and every detail or hypothesis of each and every researcher, the picture, when assembled, is very clear: it was a conspiracy, it involved many factions and elements of the American deep state, and the American people were lied to, repeatedly, about the murder ever since.
Which is why I found this article at Zero Hedge (which was spotted by Mr. V.T. and who led the vanguard of people emailing it to me) so interesting, for maybe, just maybe, this documents release is not the whitewash I and others expected it to be:
There is, in this one little article, much food for thought: allegations that the KGB had (and thus probably still has) evidence on Lyndon Johnson's involvement (no surprise there, just a bit of confirmation of what I and others have suspected); evidence of Cuban exilee involvement (again, no surprise), allegations of "Jewish" involvement from those Cuban sources, perhaps referring to Myer Lansky who, as a well-known mob figure, had lost casinos in Havana with Castro's overthrow of Batista. Again, none of this information is unknown to the JFK assassination research community. Indeed, it's been known for years. The files simply apparently confirm what has always been argued and suspected.
I suspect, however, that there's a deeper story here, and herewith my high octane speculation of the day. The documents release occurred at Trump's insistence and over the apparent opposition of the intelligence community, and occurred in a time when other lynchpins of the deep state are under assault: the recent scandals that started with Harvey Weinstein and which suddenly branched out to include various other media figures and even a former president is a case in point. Mr. Trump himself has, of course, been under constant scrutiny since the election for allegations we'll simply call "Russiagate", and more recently, Hillary Clinton has become ensnared in "Russiagate" for allegations concerning bribery and pay-for-play schemes involving uranium sales to Russia (our supposed "mega-enemy"). As I suggested last year, both candidates had their own unique ties to the deep state, but with different ties or factional interests represented. I advanced the hypothesis, for example, that Mr. Trump's ties were via the casino business and its well-known connections to the Mafia, and of course as a real estate developer in New York, one simply cannot do business without doing business with it. Then we had the Las Vegas shooting, a strike back, perhaps? Mrs. Clinton's and her husband's connections to other wings and factions are well-known and have been the subject of allegations, research, and investigation since their days in Arkansas, specifically since the the Mena-CIA drug running affair with all its connections to the Bush family and the Reagan White House, and so on. (See for example Terry Reed's book Comprised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA). Interestingly enough, both candidates had some connection to various factions which JFK assassination researchers have argued were involved in the president's murder: the intelligence community, and the Mafia-casino connection.
In the midst of all this, we have Mr. Trump authorizing a JFK documents release not only against the wishes of the intelligence community, and presumably, the advice of some in the White House staff itself, but doing so in a clear break from the tradition of his predecessors in office, Mr Bush and Mr Obama, who both extended the release dates. And it doesn't take much thought to see the connections and influences in play in their administrations that may have influenced their decisions.
In other words, the documents release I think may be a component of a much deeper "multi-front" war taking place behind the scenes between various factions of the deep state. In the context of this speculative hypothesis, it is intriguing to note something about Mr. Trump's documents release that is a break with executive branch tradition, not just in one respect, but rather two: the obvious break is with the decisions of his predecessors in the presidency, as I noted above. But the not-so-obvious break is with the tradition that the executive branch itself has maintained, since Lyndon Johnson, of its more or less "semi-official" endorsement of the Warren Report. It was Congress, under its various assassination committees, which began to proffer an "officially sanctioned" conspiracy theory, but the executive branch never did nor said anything to call into question the executive branch's own version of the story - the Warren Report - until now, for by releasing documents that suggest even the remotest whiff of conspiracy or challenge to the Report, Mr. Trump is challenging that narrative, if not in verbum then at least de facto. Add the various versions of "Russiagate" and even the more recent "sexcapade scandals" to the mix, and one has, in my opinion, clear indicators that something very deep is playing out behind the scenes.
See you on the flip side...