+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Clay Shaw (/thread-2273.html)
Clay Shaw - Steve Minnerly - 29-08-2013
I saw "He Must Have Something" when it was broadcast back during the 30th anniversary of the assassination. I recorded it on my vcr. Unfortunately as many people are probably aware video cassette tapes were not very durable and it self destructed after a couple years.
Been hoping it would turn up on Youtube but it never did.
Btw did anybody else notice that there was an enormous outpouring of media coverage during the 30th anniversary that was not duplicated on the 40th. My guess is it had to do with Stones movie coming out only a few years before.
Clay Shaw - Tracy Riddle - 30-08-2013
Steve Minnerly Wrote:Btw did anybody else notice that there was an enormous outpouring of media coverage during the 30th anniversary that was not duplicated on the 40th. My guess is it had to do with Stones movie coming out only a few years before.
I think most people were so preoccupied with the escalating clusterf*ck in Iraq in November 2003 and the whole "war on terra" that a lot of folks just forgot about it. I have to confess that it was barely on my radar screen for various personal reasons.
Clay Shaw - Jim DiEugenio - 30-08-2013
Oh no, it was part of the freeze out that started after Posner's book came out. It was very deliberate on the part of the MSM.
THey were not going to let that happen again.
Clay Shaw - Tom Scully - 19-01-2016
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Oh no, it was part of the freeze out that started after Posner's book came out. It was very deliberate on the part of the MSM.
THey were not going to let that happen again.
Jim,
Were you aware, for example, that this is about Lemann's nephew?:
Quote:https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=NDeeVtKNH4qe-AXZiq-wBw#q=%22the+second+biggest+lie%22+Nicholas+Lemann+finally+confronts+Garrison%27s+and+Stone%27s+main+thesis&filter=0
THE SECOND BIGGEST LIE
by Michael Morrissey
.......
On the last page of a seven-page article in GQ (Jan. 1992, p. 75), Nicholas
Lemann finally confronts Garrison's and Stone's main thesis by referring not to
the documents but to a 1964 interview with Robert Kennedy.
See: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6761&search=lemann#relPageId=152&tab=page
This is apparently the same 1964 interview cited by Herbert Parmet (discussed above).
I have not been able to consult the original material, which is part of an oral history
collection at the JFK Library in Boston, but it is interesting that Lehmann cuts
off the quotation at a strategic point.
Interviewer: Did the president feel that we would have to go into Vietnam in a
big way?
RFK: We certainly considered what would be the result if you abandon Vietnam,
even Southeast Asia, and whether it was worthwhile trying to keep and hold on
to.
Interviewer: What did he say? What did he think?
RFK: He reached the conclusion that probably it was worthwhile...
This has to be a deliberate misrepresentation. The ellipsis conceals what we
know from Parmet's citation:
"As Bobby Kennedy later said, his brother had reached the point where he felt
that South Vietnam was worth keeping for psychological and political reasons
'more than anything else.'" (Parmet, p. 336).
Piecing these two parts of RFK's remark together, the complete sentence would
seem to have been:
"He reached the conclusion that probably it was worthwhile for psychological and
political reasons more than anything else."
As I have already mentioned, "it was worthwhile" in this context more likely
meant "it was not worthwhile" (psychological and political reasons hardly
justifying a war), especially since we know, just as Robert knew, that President
Kennedy had decided to terminate US military participation by the end of 1965....
This plays to one of my gravest concerns.... are we really this screwed?
Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Lemann
Nicholas Berthelot Lemann is the Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus of the Faculty of Journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.[1] He has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1999.[2] ....
If the answer is yes, they really were excellent at what they do, and probably could have prevented the assassination
of JFK and the 9/11 treatment if they preserved that sort of talent in the ensuing years. How could Tass and Pravda have been a worse alternative? Upton Sinclair nailed it in The Brass Check.
Clay Shaw - Mark A. O'Blazney - 19-01-2016
Tom Scully Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Oh no, it was part of the freeze out that started after Posner's book came out. It was very deliberate on the part of the MSM.
THey were not going to let that happen again.
Jim,
Were you aware, for example, that this is about Lemann's nephew?:
Quote:https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=NDeeVtKNH4qe-AXZiq-wBw#q=%22the+second+biggest+lie%22+Nicholas+Lemann+finally+confronts+Garrison%27s+and+Stone%27s+main+thesis&filter=0
THE SECOND BIGGEST LIE
by Michael Morrissey
.......
On the last page of a seven-page article in GQ (Jan. 1992, p. 75), Nicholas
Lemann finally confronts Garrison's and Stone's main thesis by referring not to
the documents but to a 1964 interview with Robert Kennedy.
See: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6761&search=lemann#relPageId=152&tab=page
This is apparently the same 1964 interview cited by Herbert Parmet (discussed above).
I have not been able to consult the original material, which is part of an oral history
collection at the JFK Library in Boston, but it is interesting that Lehmann cuts
off the quotation at a strategic point.
Interviewer: Did the president feel that we would have to go into Vietnam in a
big way?
RFK: We certainly considered what would be the result if you abandon Vietnam,
even Southeast Asia, and whether it was worthwhile trying to keep and hold on
to.
Interviewer: What did he say? What did he think?
RFK: He reached the conclusion that probably it was worthwhile...
This has to be a deliberate misrepresentation. The ellipsis conceals what we
know from Parmet's citation:
"As Bobby Kennedy later said, his brother had reached the point where he felt
that South Vietnam was worth keeping for psychological and political reasons
'more than anything else.'" (Parmet, p. 336).
Piecing these two parts of RFK's remark together, the complete sentence would
seem to have been:
"He reached the conclusion that probably it was worthwhile for psychological and
political reasons more than anything else."
As I have already mentioned, "it was worthwhile" in this context more likely
meant "it was not worthwhile" (psychological and political reasons hardly
justifying a war), especially since we know, just as Robert knew, that President
Kennedy had decided to terminate US military participation by the end of 1965....
This plays to one of my gravest concerns.... are we really this screwed?
Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Lemann
Nicholas Berthelot Lemann is the Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus of the Faculty of Journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.[1] He has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1999.[2] ....
If the answer is yes, they really were excellent at what they do, and probably could have prevented the assassination
of JFK and the 9/11 treatment if they preserved that sort of talent in the ensuing years. How could Tass and Pravda have been a worse alternative? Upton Sinclair nailed it in The Brass Check.
To Thrill a Mockingbird?
Clay Shaw - Albert Doyle - 19-01-2016
Edit:
(FYI: Scully - I think Hargrove is trying to contact you in the Money Order thread)
Clay Shaw - Jim DiEugenio - 20-01-2016
Tom S.:
In reply to your number 24 above, yes I was aware of that.
Nicolas Lemann was the nephew of Steve Lemann, of the law firm Monroe and Lemann.
That very powerful law firm was the firm representing WDSU, the NBC outlet in New Orleans owned by the wealthy Stern family which was one of the biggest supporters of Shaw/Bertrand at the time.
WDSU was the outlet that Walter Sheridan worked with in New Orleans while assembling his, originally two part, hatchet job on Garrison.
Because it was originally scheduled as two parts, Sheridan got money from the CIA which was laundered through Monroe and Lemann. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 238)
And yes I was also aware of Nicolas Lemann's ascension through the power elite after that article. An ascension which is not at all merited by his own work or talents.
So the answer to your question is that, yes they really are that good and they really are that dedicated to preserving their own power.
BTW, you might want to ask how I found out that Nicolas Lemann was Steve Lemann's nephew. I am not a genealogist like you are. So when the article came out, I smelled a rat somewhere. So I called up Monroe and Lemann and I asked if Nicolas was any relation to the co founder of the firm. The secretary gave me the bad news, "Oh, that's his nephew."
I got a little sick to my stomach. These guys are really serious.
Clay Shaw - Tom Scully - 25-01-2016
Jim,
Thank you. In your book you wrote:
Quote:[URL="https://books.google.com/books?id=Gcf19iJnAk4C&pg=PT299&lpg=PT299&dq=lemann+monroe+wdsu+cia&source=bl&ots=I-EYGdDhMG&sig=j9ylWO218AWIcHS965HxD3ax_Fk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM2Iy7xsPKAhVD2R4KHcipA2wQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=lemann%20monroe%20wdsu%20cia&f=false"]
Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case[/URL]
....just how willing and eager they were to indulge
themselves in covert help--and then lie about it.
For when the author discussed this issue with Irvin Dymond
in his office in New Orleans, this is what he did.
He tried to feign that he knew nothing about it.
This is ludicrous. Because Shaw's boss, Lloyd Cobb,
was given a Provisional Security Approval for this
very panel at the time Sheridan's show was broad-cast!
In fact, Dymond knew so much about it that, as the Leemans
affidavit shows, he used it. He even made referrals to it.
This important point, Shaw's lawyers' ties to the
intelligence community, and their dissembling
about it, will be returned to later.
With the above in mind, let us now note how Sheridan
was intent on flipping Garrion's two preliminary hearing
witnesses. Jane Lemann and Nina Sulzer were two New
Orleans Parish prison workers. Lemann was related by
marriage to Steven Lemann of the previously noted
Monroe and Lemann, the CIA related law firm funneling
money to Sheridan and representing WDSU....
I've read Peter Vea's index and the memo William Martin wrote to Garrison, dated May 24, 1967,
RE: Martin's luncheon with an unidentified associate who Martin said had worked for CIA and lived
in New Orleans all of his life. I've read that there was also a mention of Stephen Lemann's ties on
a page in the Reissman file, a series of points initialed on the bottom by Garrison, undated but accompanied by
a May 5, 1967 memo to Garrison by ADA Oser. I have it all up, here.:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-852016
I know that before the Times-Picayune published Garrison's six page letter of complaint to the FCC on June 18, 1967,
Garrison had included a reference in near the end of the sixth page of the letter describing a prominent lawyer representing
WDSU who was in the past know to distribute CIA funds in New Orleans.
I do not need any additional information from you to complete what I've set out to do.... I want to at the least demand that
Columbia University "disinvite" Nicholas Lemann, but I wondered if you recall who William Martin's "associate" might have been,
or if there were any other sources of Stephen Lemann's connection with the CIA?
I notice you briefly had it out with McAdams in 2014, partially about this, but while the Comment of the week I chose for last
week is still on the front page, and Jeff Morley's court ruling announcement of last Thursday is fresh and certainly not unrelated to
what we are discussing here, I'm hoping you can comment on the thread ( http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/ )
and then after I see (and quickly approve) your comment, follow the thread and read what I intend to present there, and your reaction to it.
I think my new details are a homerun on the order of identifying "missing" William Mitchell.
As you'll appreciate, I will provide irrefutable proof that Nicholas Lemann was not particularly candidate when he told this to the
Federal Court in 1992, or he is too clueless to see what was done to him... the influence on him to write the push back piece against
"JFK the movie," too stupid to be Dean Emeritus at Columbia, or too dishonest.... no in between, I think you will agree when you
read what I've presented.
Quote:http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921409806FSupp603_11312/RUSSO%20v.%20CONDE%20NAST%20PUBLICATIONS
Perry RUSSO v. CONDE NAST PUBLICATIONS d/b/a Gentlemen's Quarterly.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
November 17, 1992
……
UNDISPUTED FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
In its January, 1992 issue, GQ Magazine published an article entitled "The Case Against Jim Garrison" (hereafter the "GQ article"). The GQ article was written by Nicholas B. Lemann, a New Orleans native and winner of numerous awards for his books and articles. The GQ article was a personal memoir1 of Lemann's recollections of growing up in New Orleans during District Attorney Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for allegedly conspiring to assassinate JFK.
The 1991 movie release, JFK sparked renewed interest in the assassination as well as the prosecution itself of Clay Shaw.....
.....The GQ article published by Lemann took a different slant, expressing his view that Shaw's prosecution was built on flimsy evidence and was a tremendous embarrassment to the city.2...
As you'll soon see, Lemann took an extreme risk. He had the option of writing an objective article. His excuse was, "hey, its a magazine article,
I can write it from any perspective I choose." Even a straightforward writer uncompromised by conflicts of interest undisclosed in the article would be making an unusual excuse for what Lemann was doing. The undisclosed conflicts were troubling enough when they were only limited to what we've already discussed.
Clay Shaw - Jim DiEugenio - 25-01-2016
TS: but I wondered if you recall who William Martin's "associate" might have been,
It was David Baldwin, a close friend of Shaw's.
Clay Shaw - Tom Scully - 25-01-2016
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:TS: but I wondered if you recall who William Martin's "associate" might have been,
It was David Baldwin, a close friend of Shaw's.
Jim,
Please read the memo carefully, it is in an image at this link. I am 90 percent certain Martin is not saying his associate was Baldwin. That is why
I wanted to know if you had a source for this other than an interpretation from this particular memo.:
Quote:http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-853163
.........
Image of May 24, 1967 William Martin to Jim Garrison:
http://jfk.education/images/WilliamMartinMay24.jpg
(In the same folder, info on Baldwin apparently provided to Martin at the same May 23 luncheon with an associate, as the in the May 24 memo:
http://jfk.education/images/DavidBaldwinIndia.jpg )