Even the FBI had claimed that Harold Weisberg was the greatest authority on the JFK Assassination there is. The first and the best, he outlined the cover up a year or so after the assassination and destroyed the Warren Commission report right after it was released. He wrote over a dozen books on the subject yet he was overlooked and ignored. He discovered the discrepancies and had published Whitewash by 1965. All legitimate researchers studied Weisberg first, then they wrote their books. The rest, and they're still at it, sought to discredit him.
Mr. Weisberg taught us well. Every action is countered and "the executive agencies" used professional "debunkers" like Gerald Posner, in effort to discredit him, but he opened 10 doors for every one they sought to close.
One of Mr. Weisberg's informative and instructive quotes follows:
"Executive agencies have very much to lose by an honest investigation...how they've coped with them in the past. And they have coped with them in the past...those of you who followed the Church Committee closely know that it made alot of headlines, but we got the same people doing the same kind of business in the same way. No basic changes. The bureacracies persist, it's the nature of all bureacracies, and the bureaucracies of the intelligence agencies persist more successfully because they've got the stuff on everybody else. The Schweiker report which I mentioned briefly last night is a classic example of the success of government disinformation operations. It's not new. Those of us who follow these things closely, for example I'll mention the Watergate Committee. We frequently learn a fair amount of what these committees do not want to bring to light. There was no real Watergate investigation, there was just enough to get rid of Richard Nixon. If you stop and think -one of my problems and I hope you can understand it, is that there is an enormous amount of information, and I just don't know if I'm cutting off too soon, if I'm informing you enough. So please interrup me if I'm not clear...I'll try to give you one simple illustration with the Watergate committee, which everybody just loved. Once the word about Nixon's tapes was out, there was not a single bit of investigation. You think back to all the newspaper headlines, over what you saw on TV especially if you took in the hearings when they were live, -nothing, nobody investigated anything. There is much that could have been learned by investigation. I mean an enormous amount that could have not possibly been on those tapes.
All governments, as I think you have come to know, work under pressures, they're political pressures, great pressures... those who remained in government and the new president once John Kennedy was killed, these pressures never wear off. There are all kinds of sources for all kinds of reasons, and they're not all bad reasons. It depends on the question of concern, on the subject matter, on what form the pressures can take...and things of that sort. I don't know why Dick Schweiker wanted to have a subcommitte of the Church committee on political assassinations. There there were other members of the committee who knew me, who wanted me to speak to them long before there was a Schweiker committee. And from his total indifference to the work of the subcommittee, I have no idea why Senator Gary Hart, who you may remember was Governor McGovern's campaign manager, wanted to be on the subcommittee -his attitude was negative about everything. And he apparently did absolutely no work at all. So I can't explain that to you. I can tell you that in the meeting I had with Dick Schweiker, when he asked mem to come in, andit's a day I'll never forget because I was on the way to the hospital and I didn't know it, I was much impressed by the man but I developed a theory that he had heard the siren song and found it melodious. And I tried to caution him against theorizing and I tried to persuade him that the last thing the country needs is new trauma, that we have a sufficient agony, that theorizing would mean more agony, and he thanked me profusely and I really left impressed with the idea that he might go and take a responsible route, and while I was in the hospital, I heard news accounts of his appearance in his native state of Pennsylvania, and my faith didn't last long."
On October 16, 1975, the New York Times reported the following, and the reason that Mr. Weisberg's faith was shattered is consequently very clear and obvious:
Senator Schweiker, Republican of Pennsylvania, said at a news conference here that the subcommittee had developed very significant leads about the murder and wants to investigate the following possibilities.That President Kennedy was killed by means of a Communist plot originating in Cuba or the Soviet Union.
That the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination was a result of a right-wing conspiracy in the United States.
That anti-Castro Cubans, angry over diminishing support from the Kennedy Administration, planned the murder.
Senator Schweiker said he did not lean toward any particular conspiracy theory. The only thing I'm certain about is that we don't know the truth about the Kennedy assassination, he said.
Thanks to the media and to everything that Mr. Weisberg taught us, we already know what the deep-state Mueller report is going to say because every government commission appears to operate in the same manner.
The 1975 New York Time's story, which reflects the tenor of the general relationship between the media and the government, allows us to fast-forward to the "Mueller commission report" which can easily be surmised using the Schweiker template -- the Communists are the only menace "the authorities" are authorized to consider and it is not difficult to figure out the rest.
If Weisberg was alive, the evidence would make him say things like, "The only thing I am certain about is that we still don't know the truth about how Bush and Cheney beat Kerry and Edwards, so why don't we get to the bottom of that before we continue to scapegoat the Russians?"
he would also have said, "At least 80 per cent of the public did not want another Clinton or a Bush in the White House and it was therefore clear and obvious that Donald Trump could not possibly lose because elections should ultimately mark the will of the voters and that should never be ignored."
The conspiracy caucus was not invented by Mueller or Trump and the next time the media discusses the current, collusion controversy, it should also make it very clear that the agony this foolish controversy produces is sufficient, unecessary punishment because we do not need another trauma in our lives. How about a fair, transparent, verifiable election? Is that a possibility?
Finally, if I have sounded like Trump in any way shape or form, I apologize, but remember this as well. Even a moron can be right at least once a week, so listen to everything and everybody and then, make up your own mind. That's intelligence. Everything else is superfluous.
Next: Do not believe everything you (h)ear. CLICK NOW !