Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Crimes of Quillette

Hybrid View

  1. Default The Crimes of Quillette

    This just went up at Kennedys and King. I put a lot of new and interesting info into this one because its a fascinating subject concerning both the alt/right, and Fred Litwin.

    One would think the alt/right would be all over the JFK case. But as far as Claire Lehmann who allegedly edits Quillette that is not the case. Which really makes me wonder about the whole phenomena.

    Anyway there is some new info in here also. Every opportunity I get to go after Fred,I will.

    https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-k...ubJ1CEJaamvxDg

  2. #2

    Default

    Hey Jim,
    I just explained, in the Clay Shaw thread, why I am replying to you in this thread.

    I imagine, since it is the earliest from him I can find, Lemann uses his position as editor of The Crimson, to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Scully View Post
    ,,,,,
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/2/6/the-rise-and-fall-of-big/
    The Rise and Fall of Big Jim G.

    Politics

    By Nicholas Lemann, February 6, 1974 ....


    Less than three years later, Lemann is occupying a desk next to Tom Bethel's at the Washington Montthly.
    New Orleans, Mon Amour - AEI

    http://www.aei.org/publication/new-orleans-mon-amour/


    Mar 23, 2007 - Tom Bethell, dismayed by media coverage, traveled back to the beautiful and ....Later, I would go uptown to see Brown, who is a part-owner of the Maple Leaf Bar, a prominent venue for live music. But as a preliminary step I paid a call on an old acquaintance, Thomas B. Lemann , a lawyer well known to the city’s establishment. . ... the consumption ofoystersnow requires a trek into the French Quarter.
    American Enterprise Institute, LOL, of all places?

    Jim, my ardent belief, based on the facts as I have come to know them, is that Garrison "mugged" Ms. Mellen, you, and Zachary Sklar.
    All of you have too much invested to be all that flexible. I am trying to ride the currents where ever the facts flow to. We can agree to disagree but
    you have a megaphone, to your credit, while I am akin to the (Trumpian) 400 lbs. guy in his pajamas on a bed in his mother's basement.

    IOW, you have a greater obligation to figure out and distribute unambiguous, facts supported analysis than I ever will. We could be partners in attempting
    to decipher the Baldwin Lemann Garrison conundrum, especially because they are all family and Garrison was not known to have pointed that out.

    David Baldwin did, andthe first known person he communicated it to was his friend and former employer Clay Shaw, in immediate reaction to Shaw's arrest.
    In the Clay Shaw post I just drew your attention to on that Shaw thread on this forum, I proved that the couple who were later Edwin Walker landlords
    were toasting Baldwin/Shaw pall and later CIA guy, Jesse Core and his fiancee, Lucy Ruggles in that same Turtle Creek house.
    Lucy Ruggles was held in negative light by CIA because she, with friends later with CIA who, along with Core, Baldwin, and Thornley mentor, were all
    former long time visitors or residents of India, all via State Dept., CIA, scholarly, or journalistic assignments.

    Thornley testified that this mentor BOLTON, formerly with the AP in India, visited Core and invited Thornley to accompany him.

    The movement Lucy and her two friends were described in a CIA report as participants was led by....Mac Wallace.
    Ms. Ruggles father was long time DMN editorial editor credited with coining the ANTI ORGANIZED LABOR
    hypocrisy, RIGHT TO WORK.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Scully View Post

    ......


    ......

    It surely does not help matters that Harold practically developed a man crush on Jesse Core, intially attracted because he hoped Core could ID
    the person passing out leaflets with Oswald near the Trade Mart.
    [
    PDF]Li a-,-)/wo - The Harold Weisberg Archive


    jfk.hood.edu/Collection/.../Thornley%20Kerry%20Wendell%20.../Item%2013.pdf

    Dave Lifton and Kerry the Great (ask him) Thornley. In all of this biased ... lated to the charge of perjury against Thornley, there is .... that Mentor Bolton also rec.
    Last edited by Tom Scully; 12-05-2018 at 09:36 PM.
    Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Scully View Post
    Hey Jim,
    I just explained, in the Clay Shaw thread, why I am replying to you in this thread.

    I imagine, since it is the earliest from him I can find, Lemann uses his position as editor of The Crimson, to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Scully View Post
    ,,,,,
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/2/6/the-rise-and-fall-of-big/
    The Rise and Fall of Big Jim G.

    Politics

    By Nicholas Lemann, February 6, 1974 ....


    Less than three years later, Lemann is occupying a desk next to Tom Bethel's at the Washington Montthly.
    New Orleans, Mon Amour - AEI

    http://www.aei.org/publication/new-orleans-mon-amour/


    Mar 23, 2007 - Tom Bethell, dismayed by media coverage, traveled back to the beautiful and ....Later, I would go uptown to see Brown, who is a part-owner of the Maple Leaf Bar, a prominent venue for live music. But as a preliminary step I paid a call on an old acquaintance, Thomas B. Lemann , a lawyer well known to the city’s establishment. . ... the consumption ofoystersnow requires a trek into the French Quarter.
    American Enterprise Institute, LOL, of all places?

    Jim, my ardent belief, based on the facts as I have come to know them, is that Garrison "mugged" Ms. Mellen, you, and Zachary Sklar.
    All of you have too much invested to be all that flexible. I am trying to ride the currents where ever the facts flow to. We can agree to disagree but
    you have a megaphone, to your credit, while I am akin to the (Trumpian) 400 lbs. guy in his pajamas on a bed in his mother's basement.

    IOW, you have a greater obligation to figure out and distribute unambiguous, facts supported analysis than I ever will. We could be partners in attempting
    to decipher the Baldwin Lemann Garrison conundrum, especially because they are all family and Garrison was not known to have pointed that out.

    David Baldwin did, andthe first known person he communicated it to was his friend and former employer Clay Shaw, in immediate reaction to Shaw's arrest.
    In the Clay Shaw post I just drew your attention to on that Shaw thread on this forum, I proved that the couple who were later Edwin Walker landlords
    were toasting Baldwin/Shaw pall and later CIA guy, Jesse Core and his fiancee, Lucy Ruggles in that same Turtle Creek house.
    Lucy Ruggles was held in negative light by CIA because she, with friends later with CIA who, along with Core, Baldwin, and Thornley mentor, were all
    former long time visitors or residents of India, all via State Dept., CIA, scholarly, or journalistic assignments.

    Thornley testified that this mentor BOLTON, formerly with the AP in India, visited Core and invited Thornley to accompany him.

    The movement Lucy and her two friends were described in a CIA report as participants was led by....Mac Wallace.
    Ms. Ruggles father was long time DMN editorial editor credited with coining the ANTI ORGANIZED LABOR
    hypocrisy, RIGHT TO WORK.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Scully View Post

    ......


    ......

    It surely does not help matters that Harold practically developed a man crush on Jesse Core, intially attracted because he hoped Core could ID
    the person passing out leaflets with Oswald near the Trade Mart.
    [
    PDF]Li a-,-)/wo - The Harold Weisberg Archive


    jfk.hood.edu/Collection/.../Thornley%20Kerry%20Wendell%20.../Item%2013.pdf

    Dave Lifton and Kerry the Great (ask him) Thornley. In all of this biased ... lated to the charge of perjury against Thornley, there is .... that Mentor Bolton also rec.
    The sound of one cricket chirping again, Tom? Always a pleasure to read anything about Kerista !!! Thanks for posting. Enjoy the Festivuses!!

  4. Default

    Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.

    But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland. I stopped reading his book when I saw how he covered up the military record of Thrasher who Shaw worked for.

    https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/776

    And that is not all. Carpenter ignores the cover up within the CIA about Shaw's contract agent status. That cover up was ongoing into the nineties. In fact, the ARRB discovered that it was so deep that the CIA destroyed Shaw's 201 file. (ARRB memo from Legaspi to Gunn, 11/14/96) This was all begun by design in the summer of 1964, and I have this through a letter that Gordon Novel wrote after the Garrison investigation, namely that the CIA Office of Security ordered a cover up about Shaw's true Agency status a that time. Why? And why did it never end?

    Why did Shaw lie about knowing Ferrie, Oswald, or being in Clinton/Jackson, and using the Bertrand alias? To quote the late attorney Allard Lowenstein, "In my experience, people with noting to hide don't hide things."

    In my view, there are not a lot of people who you can make a better case against today for complicity in the JFK case than you can with Clay Shaw.

    The other point you once brought up, which I assume you also got from Carpenter, since I never heard you express it before, is just as ersatz. That somehow Garrison's inquiry did not cost him anything. Again, please.

    In 1966, Jim Garrison was ascending very fast to becoming one of the most popular and powerful politicians in the state. He had made headlines--some national-- with his crusade against B girl drinking in New Orleans. He had gotten Governor John McKeithen elected, even though he was a second tier candidate. He confided to a pal at this time that the only other job he really aspired to besides being DA was senator. It was his JFK inquiry that cost him both of those jobs. When someone blows his career ambitions over a case, then how can anyone say that he did not lose anything?

    But it was worse than that. When Connick put together a huge campaign war chest to defeat Garrison in 1973, Garrison had just been through two criminal trials on corruption charges. I can tell you right now that neither of those cases would have ever been brought if not for Garrison's investigation of JFK. So in addition to losing two careers, he almost went to jail. But there is actually more. Once Connick defeated him, and because the power elite in New Orleans had now disdained him, Garrison did not get any job offers, as he had been able to do before the JFK case. People who talked to him at this time said he was renting a small office from a larger law firm. They said he was personally kind of bitter about the whole thing. Does Carpenter say this was all an act? Including the two trials?

    But there is still more. See, Connick, who worked for the Justice Department to defend Shaw, ended up being an absolutely terrible DA. One of the worst in the nation. He was so bad that he was actually singled out from the Supreme Court twice for malpractice. When i asked John Volz, who worked for both men, to compare the two he said there was none. Connick was a disaster as DA. So it was not just a cost to JG but also the city of New Orleans and also the people who Connick used every unethical track with in order to get a conviction. Look it all up if you don't believe me.

    So just what in Hades is Carpenter talking about? As I said, a friend of mine told me that he knew what Carpenter's agenda was from meeting him just once. We don't need any of that anymore in this case. That kind of cover up crap has wielded a lot of damage.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.

    But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland. I stopped reading his book when I saw how he covered up the military record of Thrasher who Shaw worked for.

    https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/776

    And that is not all. Carpenter ignores the cover up within the CIA about Shaw's contract agent status. That cover up was ongoing into the nineties. In fact, the ARRB discovered that it was so deep that the CIA destroyed Shaw's 201 file. (ARRB memo from Legaspi to Gunn, 11/14/96) This was all begun by design in the summer of 1964, and I have this through a letter that Gordon Novel wrote after the Garrison investigation, namely that the CIA Office of Security ordered a cover up about Shaw's true Agency status a that time. Why? And why did it never end?

    Why did Shaw lie about knowing Ferrie, Oswald, or being in Clinton/Jackson, and using the Bertrand alias? To quote the late attorney Allard Lowenstein, "In my experience, people with noting to hide don't hide things."

    In my view, there are not a lot of people who you can make a better case against today for complicity in the JFK case than you can with Clay Shaw.

    The other point you once brought up, which I assume you also got from Carpenter, since I never heard you express it before, is just as ersatz. That somehow Garrison's inquiry did not cost him anything. Again, please.

    In 1966, Jim Garrison was ascending very fast to becoming one of the most popular and powerful politicians in the state. He had made headlines--some national-- with his crusade against B girl drinking in New Orleans. He had gotten Governor John McKeithen elected, even though he was a second tier candidate. He confided to a pal at this time that the only other job he really aspired to besides being DA was senator. It was his JFK inquiry that cost him both of those jobs. When someone blows his career ambitions over a case, then how can anyone say that he did not lose anything?

    But it was worse than that. When Connick put together a huge campaign war chest to defeat Garrison in 1973, Garrison had just been through two criminal trials on corruption charges. I can tell you right now that neither of those cases would have ever been brought if not for Garrison's investigation of JFK. So in addition to losing two careers, he almost went to jail. But there is actually more. Once Connick defeated him, and because the power elite in New Orleans had now disdained him, Garrison did not get any job offers, as he had been able to do before the JFK case. People who talked to him at this time said he was renting a small office from a larger law firm. They said he was personally kind of bitter about the whole thing. Does Carpenter say this was all an act? Including the two trials?

    But there is still more. See, Connick, who worked for the Justice Department to defend Shaw, ended up being an absolutely terrible DA. One of the worst in the nation. He was so bad that he was actually singled out from the Supreme Court twice for malpractice. When i asked John Volz, who worked for both men, to compare the two he said there was none. Connick was a disaster as DA. So it was not just a cost to JG but also the city of New Orleans and also the people who Connick used every unethical track with in order to get a conviction. Look it all up if you don't believe me.

    So just what in Hades is Carpenter talking about? As I said, a friend of mine told me that he knew what Carpenter's agenda was from meeting him just once. We don't need any of that anymore in this case. That kind of cover up crap has wielded a lot of damage.
    Falling for Carpenter? Or falling for you, Jim....... the truth will out+ .......... but not in our lifetime. sigh.

  6. Default

    Mark:

    If you read my review of Carpenter's article you will see how I show that Carpenter did not use the declassified documents in his book.

    Therefore, he was concealing important information from his readers about his main subject.

    As I also mention, he was also not candid about General Thrasher's career and Shaw's service with him.

    Then there is the matter of the destruction of Shaw's 201 file which the ARRB discovered in the nineties, along with the hidden contract agent status the man had.

    These are all provable and important facts which Carpenter does not alert his readers to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •