Get ready for.
Twenty sixth day of March twenty twenty five. Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this is the show you were looking for.
How do I know that? Because you found it? Anyway?
By the bye, it has now been a little while since we got the transcript function working over on spreakers. So every podcast, believe it or not, is in written form over there now via the transcript. It's automatic, it's AI. It's actually done a fairly good job. I've monitored it, so I'm not going to complain. And for those of you have asked for transcripts, the transcript can be read
along with the podcast or an whole afterwards. So just telling you if you're downloading this, especially from the speaker feed, transcripts are available. And we were asked about that several times over the years.
Well there it is.
That's what it was. What am I talking about tonight? How about this the JFK assassination? The new files? Well are they new? There's the big question right there. See everybody says they're all new. What happened the big document dump of twenty twenty five. I hate to put it that way, especially because it sounds like I'm automatically insulting the Trump administration, but I'm not. A document dump is
a common phrase for me. But I got two other people that you're gonna hear from tonight, and they're gonna give you some other information. And I'm still working on trying to read these things through. And I bet you both of these guys are still stuck in the middle of it, even though you know they're not necessarily stuck, but they're taking their time doing their thing. I know they have to be, cause I can't catch up this
quick now. Jeff Morley from JFK FAX has been out there on a media tour, and admittedly I would tell you to go check out what he has to say, But is there more to be said?
And who do I have with me?
Larry Hancock, the author of various books, But I'll point you to directly the Oswald Puzzle, which has gotten mentioned, by the way, during this discussion of the new documents, and how interesting it is that Larry's book on Oswald fits perfectly with perspective is not blown up and useless immediately when new documents come out, And indeed there were some new things about Lee Army Oswald but guess what, Larry's book still solid even with the new documentation, and
I highly recommend it. In fact, I wrote a review for it on BookBub. Anyway, maybe i'll give you a link to that in the show notes, along with a way to go get that book. And also the author of the War State, and gee, I might have more relevant things to talk current events with Mike Swanson later, but we're talking JFK documents tonight. The author of the War State, Why the Vietnam War? Also hell of a guy, and the proprietor the guy at Wall Street Window dot com and still putting out a hell.
Of a newsletter over there.
Oh, by the way, Larrydashancock dot com, Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. That's where you can catch up on Larry Hancock's blog. And you know, I recommend you let him take up as much space as he does on my bookshelf, because I recommend all of his written works. But anyway, that all out of the way, let's get to JFK. But first let me ask how everybody's doing.
Mike.
How you doing tonight, sir?
Doing good?
Great to talk to you, and it's always great to be talking with you. And Larry, that's a special treat.
Look, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to I'm always happy to be the dumbest guy in the room, So it's great. Mike is an excellent author for making things sound simple even when they're complex. I love that because I'm the simpleton here. But I love this, and hopefully actually Mike and Ile both converge. Maybe a JFK lancer this year, and if we can recruit Larry, we're going to try and at least keep him running the Facebook interactions. And I want to talk him into doing a presentation
over there, but we'll get to that later. Maybe he'll do it virtually. Maybe he'll do it with David Boylen in person. See David's the co author of the oswal puzzle. And last year they did a half and half where you had half a live presentation and Larry on the horn there or on the.
Zoom or whatever.
Who knows, maybe there will be something called the horn by then, as long as we don't use signal and try to share bombing plans.
Did I say that out loud? Larry?
It is good to have you, and absolutely looking forward to what you have to say, But anyway, enough out of me.
How you doing tonight, sir.
Oh, I'm good. It's starting to be spring here. I'm doing some outside work and join it. And I'm glad to be on with both you and Mike because the way the discussion of going of the releases, it's like two or three people are required just to deal with it.
Well, look, it's a large volume of stuff, and like I said, Morley is tackling it over at JFK FAX with a team of people, and there have been teams of people. Mary Ferrell involved, some you know, other independent groups. Everybody's trying to tackle all this stuff and see what it is we can learn from a significant release. I think we can all agree that it is a significant number of pages, but you know, what is the significance
of the information. Of course, I'm not going to sit here and do what everybody else does and go, what's the smoking gun, Larry?
What did we learn? Who did it? I'm not doing that to you, or to Mike or to myself.
Let me ask Mia, yo, something did you? Morley had a webinar last week. I think that the very next day after the files were released, and seventy five percent of it was him giving a layout of some of the information teas researched about Angleton. But the beginning of it had this Representative Anna Luna who's going to be running congressional hearing about the release and the Kennedy assassination too next week. I think it's it's on April the first. I guess it's going to be a one day hearing.
But did y'all catch that webinar at all?
Well?
I was there for the most of it, Larry, you were there too, right, Yeah, I.
Was on the webinar and I have been. I think I've chatted with jeff almost every day, including you know, about what information is going to Luna, because it's it's pretty clear, it's clearly pretty clear at this point in time that our only chance of getting outside the box, as it were, in other words, outside the box of the JFK files, right is to get someone to start beating the drum for collecting in other places, because now
we've got what's in the box. But what's in the box is not all there is to get to see.
There you go, do we have all of it? And Representative Luna's there, now, let's be fair. Jefferson Morley is gonna, you know, testify on the first of April, even though Luna made the joke and said she was trying to move it to the second so nobody would take it as an April fool's joke.
While she was there, she said that, and it.
Was good to see at least official cooperation with the community a little bit.
But I don't know how I feel about it entirely. Is this going to be just.
A political creatures act that goes on here? Is this going to be just for the show and to try and you know, capture a couple of headlines and get some positive responses from the public.
I don't know.
I've got my suspicions always when somebody from inside wants to work with those of us on the outside.
But yeah, one thing I want to talk about in this talk with both of y'all.
So, I mean, it's.
One hand, you know, it's interesting, how I mean, if what appears to have taken place, it's kind of interesting with with the way the files were released from there's associate press story the day anyway, Trump gave an appearance at the KENNEYA Center and made a statement that there's something like eighty thousand files and they're all going out tomorrow.
And then we all waited.
To see what was going to happen, and they came out at seven o'clock. I think it was as Morley was doing his webinar. Actually over an hour afterwards.
For clarity, I tracked this mike.
It started coming out around seven pm Eastern and continued to come out, you know, for up until about eleven pm. And then there were additional releases added later. But and maybe some stuff was cleaned up, you know, maybe some stuff didn't go through entirely. Whatever, But this was a process that started at seven pm.
Yeah.
There was associated press story along with this before the webinar started, and it said basically that Trump told the agencies through Tulsa Gabbard, they have to release these files and they had a new deadline to do it. They told him this the day before, and the Justice Department had a couple hundred lawyers, maybe more than that, a whole bunch of lawyers. Each one had to look through something like, according to the story, five hundred files of
peace and make sure there are new legal issues. And obviously Trump wanted know or as few reaction as possible and that's what we got.
But it was.
What I think happened was, you know, the first time around, when Trump was president twenty seventeen, he said he going to release all the files, and we were, you know, we it didn't happen, you know, and he put that statement on Twitter, all the files coming out. They didn't come out, and he looked, you know, disingenuous. And then the stories were that Mike Pimpeo, who is the CI director, told him, you know, uh to hold off and and and uh and and then and so it didn't happen.
And of course Biden didn't do it either. Oh to get it every.
Single little detail, just to make it simple. Let me, let me got negative.
You know, Trump got some negative uh social media stuff out of this. Uh Tucker calls and criticize him.
The judge now, Briano.
Yeh, look, there's a lot. And then.
When Trump gets in office, there was gonna be this.
I don't I'm not someone who pays attention this Epstein stuff, but I had.
I called them.
They call themselves people I know Trump fans like, that's what.
They call themselves.
And they were excited about the idea of Epstein releases and the Attorney General, you know, was going to release this Epstein stuff and that turned into a dud and they got a lot of blowback on social media. So I think all this negative blowback actually came to our benefit this time, those of us interested in the Kenny case, because we got I think more than we expected we're going to get.
Well, there's there's questions.
Ag.
Yeah, there's a yes and note of that, because look, in twenty seventeen, Trump released a few things as per what was supposed to be released. You know, after the twenty five year waiting period from the arr B, he released some stuff, but not all of it, and in fact, withheld the majority of it still even after the twenty five year time period. Now that is not the totality of the records that are being but that's just the stuff from the nineteen nineties that was we were waiting
on for twenty seventeen. He basically, i know, pretty much summaried this up, summarized this. Excuse me, some reaed this up. While summarized this by saying, you know, Trump kicked the can down the road, gave them more time. Biden tried to take the can off the road, and basically gave him an unlimited amount of time to continue to withhold, even though he dropped a few documents again a few
years later. Now, because of all this and a lawsuit from the Mary Paraoll Foundation and other pressures, there has been political pressure here and it has probably worked to our advantage a little bit as far as getting some sort of transparency. But this political game is not really what I think people should be interested in, even though they are. The truth is what are we getting and what did we get in comparison to what we expected to get before. And there was also this announcement of
these additional FBI documents. I don't believe we have seen those as of yet, but then again, we have seen more than we've seen before. And it's not like there's no reactions on these documents either. There are still reactions in many places, and we're doing comparisons on these things, but this is not a process that can be done right away. In the meantime, the media, general media went
out and made all sorts of declarations. I mean, within minutes of these documents being you know, uploaded, they were uploading their news stories and telling us exactly, oh, you know, there's nothing to see here or maybe there.
Is, well, yeah, coverage basically, I mean I've subscribed in New York Times, so I've read it in their coverage, you know, said their story was something like what's in the files or something? The headline right, and then the very first subheading said Oswald did it right.
See but that's the thing is, and I said, immediately, the mouthpiece of the CIA has spoken, Okay, great, yawn, Okay, what are you going to do to me? The proclamations from the mainstream media are not educated, could not possibly have been researched. I don't care how large their team was. They didn't have time unless they had advanced looks at this stuff before it dropped, and they had people that were experienced enough to know what they were looking at.
So to me, the New York Times declarations or you know, the Daily Beast or whoever else is out there saying what they're saying, they are not doing it from a perspective of having actually looked at it, Which is why we need to talk to people like Larry, We need to talk to people like Jefferson. We need to look at these things for ourselves, and collectively we need to come up with some answers here as to what it
is we actually got. So, Larry, I'd like to begin there, if you don't mind, what is it that we actually got after all of this lug of war, the pr game, so to speak, at the end of the day, we either got some new information or we didn't. What is your overall verdict, and maybe you could start to describe why it is your verdict is the way it is. And I haven't discussed this with you in advance, so I don't know fully what your thoughts are.
Just go ahead. The floor is yours.
Yeah, And what I said, again, as we usually do, we have taught context and we have to accept that neither the president nor most of the media that's not really been deeply involved with this, understands what the k collection is. Okay, I would say I truly didn't understand what it was until the Mary Farrell Foundation with the Court, and that's been a many months tutorial and what it really is and issues pertaining to it. But the point is we did not get new documents. We got documents
that were in the JFKA collection. We all know where those came from, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the ARB's that's it. We haven't really seen any new documents since the ARRB started releasing things that hadn't been released before. So this the JFK collection, I know the first night that I started looking through it last week. The Mary Parl search engine has a tool on it that lets
you literally see which generation release this is. You know, how has this been released before and how many times? And I was looking at documents that had been released three to six times previously. Sometimes they had been re released with less reactions, sometimes they'd been actually re released with more reactions.
Right now, just real quickly, I wanted to ask you to add a little context to this because there is a matter of perspective we need to take into account regarding the people now in charge. You got the DNI, which is Tulsea Gabbard, right, she would have some input on this, I think, and the current acting head of the CIA would have some input on this, yes, But in reality, do they actually have the education to even
know what it is they're releasing? What it is has been previously released and would they even begin to explore something like you just did regarding has this been released three times or six times before? More or less reactions.
And oh, by the way, if anybody out there is thinking, how could they release something with more reactions, let us remember that during George W. Bush's administration, he even reclassified some things that were previously declassified that happened during his administration.
I'm not trying to make any statements about it. It's just a matter of fact.
We even had confusion as to whether am I now in possession of classified documents that were previously dec classified.
This was an issue, and.
So we've had a back and forth here where you would have to understand the nuances of what has been released, what hasn't been released, and what the significance of those things are. And it could be a double edged sword here where we have it working to on our behalf and also against US people not quite knowing what is relevant here and what is not relevant regarding previous releases and what's happening now. Or is that an unfair statement coming from me?
What do you think?
Well, I thought that was going to be true. I think several of us speculated. The way you normally expect is that the DNI, you know, the the agencies that
were involved. You know, if the president says, okay, everything that's in collection is going to be released, right if it hasn't been released before, we got to release it now, every which means you've got to take a look at again and swear to me that you don't have a case to redact it, because the directive also said, and he said, I want you to release everything, and I don't want it redacted, if you know that's what I want. Now, Remember, all of these documents are setting at NARA. They're not
sitting with the agencies. They were all collected, they're setting at NARA. NARA had scanned a bunch of them, had been working on scanning for a long time. So then then the question that's going to be raised, I think, could could this have worked in our favor or not?
Well?
Working in our favor would be something very literal like no, the agencies don't get a chance to look again and say no, they don't just kind of like just let them go. And that appears to have been what happened. And the reason it happened that way apparently is because Trump, being very situational, went to the JFK Center and took the opportunity to literally say it's happening and that's Mike.
As you said, they called in a batch of people just immediately as soon as he said that, and there's it's like we're, we're and that's why they released them in batches. There were two batches. Maybe there's a third batch. None of the twenty three hundred FBI newly found documents appear to have been released, and so far from what has been seen, it appears strangely that those may be documents that were collected for the ARB. And I don't understand why the FBI wouldn't have realized that was JFK
relevant if they collected them from the ARB. So bottom line, Chuck, to answer your question, I think things worked strictly through the randomness and the chaos of presidential statements, worked to our advantage, and that we got. We got things that the CIA, normally, I think, would have fought to death not to have released, like this Lessoner memo, things that are hugely embarrassing, things that to the agency, things that are usually embarrassing to the country in terms of source
information from other intelligence agencies. I mean, it's not as bad as what's going on in the news now, But if I were one of the five eyes, agencies. I would really be seriously considering what I could share with the US.
Right if you wouldn't mind be a little more specific about this Lessenger memo, because I think this is of some significance and is of interest, not necessarily to revealing the shooters on the you know, on the day of the twenty second, but it does have something to do with the interaction of John F. Kennedy and the CIA, because this is literally I mean quick summation again and
maybe way too quick and way too short. Is Lessinger identifying to Kennedy how it is he could would should maybe reorber organize the CIA change it up, because revealed in that memo, as I remember, is nearly half of these diplomatic you know, people out there on the planet seemed to be under CIA control. Now that's interesting. The
diplomatic corps is half basically our intelligence agencies. We're not looking at, you know, people out there trying to just you know, get good relations, make little deals and make nice, you know, make nice with other foreign countries. And I mean from the most significant to the least. It's kind of interesting that that was sort of revealed there. But could you talk about the s Lessenger memo and how it came about, and this kind of thing, if you don't mind.
What one of the motives for the assassination, you know, all the ones that we have has long been that the CIA decided they had to eliminate JFK because he was going to destroy the agency and that was treasonable in face of the you know, the co war. We can't let him do this, and the often on the front lines, and you know, if he starts messing around with us, that in itself is treason us well.
And the often quoted and repeated, you know, sentiment, I'm going to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind, which he said to a New York Times reporter, and that reporter let the world know about it later, and people have ever after applied that to being the CIA in its own defense turned around and what assisted in, or participated directly or ran the operation that killed John F.
Kennedy.
That's been the assertion in conspiracy culture for a long time. So or am I incorrect about that?
That has been the assertion. And so the question is was JFK that serious?
You know?
Was that just a random comment? The what we know now is that he asked Schlessinger to do a study and really address the issue. You know, is the an agency inft? Is it organized correctly? Are we being served by the agency as it gone rogue to some extent in administering policy? And lesseners message memo, which is given to us now totally unredacted, goes into all of those areas, and it points out that the CIA was so disconnected that in many occasions it was indeed operating counter to
administration policy and encounter to the State Department. Now, for those of us who've been looking at memos for a long time, this is no shock. But what is is the shock is the extent to which this memo from Sessions or details how the CIA could indeed be broken apart. You know, what would you move under state, what would be under the military, would you even have an agency? He actually comes up with a different proposed name for
what the function that's left. And so the memo, the memo certainly does support the prim us that you know, JFK was looking very seriously at taking apart the c I, A, and and and gives the reasons why, which again is you start to say some of it is to how many officers they have really in some locations, you know,
they're a third of the whole embastry staff. We knew they were operating undercovers, we didn't realize there were that many, so that this really is explosive and you can see why the agency would actually never want that public.
Well, does this also relate to what we've discussed on the program before regarding Kennedy sort of moving things toward the d N You know what it was that the d i A as opposed to the CIA, where he was trying to empower them and seemingly take away some of the operations from the CIA that was seemingly actively happening before his assassination, and this related to it in any way? Does does the Slessenger memo reflect on that?
I think what it reflects on is in the memo, I don't remember the exact wording is essentially there's an expression from JFK that Slessenger is addressing that JFK does not feel that he can count on getting the truth that every agency, whether it's done that to be the CIA, it could be Navy, it could be air Force. He knows that he's always gotten different stories from the Navy and the air Force, sorry, the air Force and the CIA, and that's misled him. That misled him into his campaign
statements about a missile that gap. He didn't trust that he could give objective information from the services, so he created the DNI. He now doesn't trust that he can get objective information from the CIA. You know what's the answer to that. So it just that the memo confirms Kennedy's statement that he's not satisfied that he's getting objective information the way the intelligence community is designed.
Okay, well, that's one way to go about it. And meanwhile, Mike, you'd observed some connections with well the Joint chiefs of Staff. And another thing that has come out in these discussions in the past week has been regarding Northwoods, right.
And that's I want to make one other point. That's the whole other thing, just with the current news, you know, in the in the release of the files. So this representative Luna, about six weeks ago, she held a press conference announcing, you know that she's going to do this. She's hitting this task force. And the task force is part of another congressional what is the word for it, A Congressional Committee. Okay, well, the task Force, because a sub you know, is.
A subcommittee of like say, the Intelligence Committee, which I think is what will be the awesome says that this hearing that Morley is going to testify under, it'll be in front of the Intelligence Committee.
Young Luna is in charge of this hearing.
Anyway, she has this press conference, and you know, she said some stuff about the assassination. And there are two things she said. One the goal, her goal, Okay, she said her goal was to change the narrative in regards to the assassination, right, and then she said that previous congressional and all the previous congressional investigations, she said, basically, we're failures, including the very first one. She conflated the Warren Commission as being a congressional investigation.
Which it wasn't, right.
And and then she there's another fact or statement. She said that you know it was mistaken. This I'm not just a mistake, okay. And I got the impression that she does at that time when she's given this press conference, she didn't really know very much about the assassination itself, but that phrase she wants to change the narrative. She obviously wasn't looking, you know, it isn't looking to reaffirm the Warren Commission. And she said some stuff about she
believed there's a second shooter. She said that, Now what Another interesting comment she made was that she's coordinating with the White House.
So I got the impression she might.
Have said the nationals someone on the on the National Security Council, actually, but I got the impression that there's some I don't know who it is, but there's someone on the National Security staff that she or the people. You know, it's not just her. I'm sure it's a couple of people with the staff that she's working with for this hearing. They're closely working with the White House.
I mean, she basically said that. And then okay, and then the Epstein thing, you know, happens and it turns into a fiasco sort of a whole lot, and then we get these files released, and then her appearance in Morley's webinar was very interesting to me. Now, she basically said in this webinar that she thought the c did it.
Well. She said, but.
Here's the thing, Mike, here's the thing, Mike, and I need to make this comment here because what we have here is somebody conflating a bunch of things, Okay, and this is due to the fact that, again, I think the people that are in power at the moment, who were actually empowered and can release these things, are looking at it from a pr standpoint, sort of a political standpoint, right, they're scoring points.
So I'm trying to.
That's what they're doing.
But at the same time, they're not read in like you pointed out, she's conflating the Warren Commission with a congressional hearing. Meanwhile, if she knew the actual official conclusion of the House Select Committee, which would be a congressional hearing, then she'd know that the House Select Committee basically already concluded that there.
Was help for Ozone, Right, So.
You bring that up.
Yeah, When the New York Times reported on the files release, they had that headline, Oswell did it. And in that part of the story or subheating, Oswald did it?
You know what did the files say? Right?
And in that subheating it said that every congressional committee or in every government investigation concluded that Oswald was the assassin. That's not true. You know, we know the House Select Committee concluded that there is more than one shooter.
Yeah, but they but they effectively concluded. But but Mike, they effectively concluded that Oswald did it too. It's just that he had help, you know what I mean?
So, yeah, I know.
But the way the New York Times phrased this was very misleading.
Of course, you know, they don't they didn't say that.
It's very misleading, right, deliberately misleading, deliberately misleading. Whereas when this representative Luna was given a press conference, I didn't feel like, oh, she's deliberately trying to deceive, you know, or anything like that. She just isn't a hundred you know, does She's new to this and Larry have been looking into this stuff forever.
You know, these people have not.
And frankly, I don't think the people in the government, uh, the CIA or other agencies of the government, Yeah they know who did it, or them, you know, could tell I have evidence he really did it.
Not only don't they know who did it, but they wouldn't know where to look for the evidence. See that's the thing about this, right, But.
What good about the morally webinar?
She said on the webinar that they are she's been tipped off basically that there's a CIA Inspector General's report somewhere in these files that says that there are people in the CIA that that were whistleblowers and talked about some sort of involvement of the agency or something, you know. And she said this was basically, if this can be discovered, it would just blow the lid on everything. Or I
can't remember the exact phrase she had. She's basically, yeah, making it sound like there's this smoking gun document that she hasn't seen, but it's been tipped off, is out there and.
So forth.
Yeah, but here's the realistic thing, right, just like when you see an unnamed source, you know, with a newspaper, here's the problem. That source tipping her, especially in Trump Land, could be anybody from Mike Pompeio, who was the former head of the CIA, was also the former out of the State Department, right, who had access to things, who was asked about these things and was involved in the
you know, withholding of documents in twenty seventeen. It could be anybody from Mike Pompeio talking to her to Roger Stone telling her that hey, there is a smoking gun.
It's so very unreliable.
Maybe I can give a little context too, because okay, this is not Luna's first subcommittee hearing. Her first series of hearings had to do with UFOs. And one of the things that all representatives, I think are it's a risk they fake, is they don't investigate things until they get tips, until they get leads. And these days whistleblowers is the thing people people are going to their congressman saying I have insider information. And that is what happened
to her on the UFO thing. She had people that had worked for the government, the whole set of them that claim to have inside information. And as a representative, her view of life is okay, if these people have some credentials, you know, I'm a representative. I need to put this in front of the nation.
Now.
One of the problems is with UFOs she got a real mix bag. She got some of the people approaching her like pilots that were credible witnesses, and another set of people really who have nothing other than gossip and anecdotes, and so her her hearings on UFOs were kind of a mixed bag. Now, a good side of things, since I do the UFO stuff too, is it opened up a lot of discussion, and I opened up a lot of interest in the topic, and that always gives you
some room to maneuver. She's going through the same thing on JFK, as you said, Mike. She has a source and she's been very sincere about this that has told her, and this has got to be an inside source who has seen an IG report that talks about this, and so she has been told there was at one point an officeral not part of the JFK collection. You know, this is something outside the collection and IGOR that existed
and was never given to anybody investigating this. That shows that the CIA did have whistle blowers that provided them information, which is kind of interesting because we know that down at Wave that they did ask some questions and collect some information right that was never given to the Warrant Commission or anybody else. But she's kind of I think what's going on now, especially with Jeff being giving testimony, is she's once again in between these people who claim
to be whistleblowers. Some may be credible, most probably aren't. And you know, it's an exposure and I guess what you have to say is at least she's gutsy enough to go risk her a reputation to walk that line, which is, you know, a real high risk line. But I will say, and this is Chuck, you know I
always do this. This is my editorial opiniontorial opinion is there's nothing in the JFK collection that we now have that's going to solve this mystery unless we can go outside the box and collect some other stuff, whether it's original films from NBC or whether it's things that we know about that weren't given to anybody by the CIA or the Unless you get out of the box, we're done. Trump is going to sign this off as a done deal,
claim credit. It's over unless she can get spur the water enough to get some more collections done.
Right now.
In the nineteen seventies, right during the House Select Committee, there were people honestly asking why aren't there more of these reports, these types of IG reports. There should be more of this, There should be more of this analysis. There should be something criticizing the Secret Service for interest per instance. Right there should be this or not. There should have been plenty of people looking into why these things went wrong at least and they were asking for
it openly back then. And guess what they came up with. Nothing, So you know, I mean not nothing, but essentially nothing compared to the amount of reports and investigations that they would have expected when things went wrong like this. Okay, and this is again my editorial, right, So that question has been out there and opened for a long time. If she has indeed stumbled across somebody who legitimately has
that information, that's great. But you and I, Larry, both know that there have been legends of documents, There have been legends of investigations. In fact, there was a whole investigation that took place in nineteen eighty eight that nobody
can seem to find any paper trail for. Right There are people that said they were questioned in the in the later and mid eighties by official people from the Department of Justice, the FBI showed up this and that and the th thing, and nobody to this day has ever found this paper trail to show that there was an organized investigation to re examine stuff in the Kennedy case.
Are you're aware that one right now?
Oh?
Yeah, absolutely, So we have the legend of an investigation and no paperwork for it. Now, if somebody's got that or a whistleblower says, they know the whereabouts of where that paper trail went. Who knows what might be revealed in there. I don't know, but there's a lot of stuff that happened. I mean, they questioned photographers, they questioned, you know, people that were witnesses to different events in
the late eighties. And to this day, nobody can find the transcripts, the FBI reports what are they called three to two reports the incidents, and nobody can find this stuff.
And yet over and over again we have people that were seemingly and previously unconnected to one another stating they had been approached, they had been questioned, they had officials come to them, investigators come to them who either were claiming to be FBI, claiming to be connected to the Department of Justice and not or were And we still do not have these files in hand. And one would think logically that this would be a legitimate piece of
the JFK investigation. And indeed, if somebody's got these FBI files, they could be connected to that legendary investigation. But I'm speculating out here openly. This is not you know, I have no evidence to back up what I'm saying. Here, I'm just saying theoretically that is something.
That could bear to we've been in the uf if she was burned a certain extent, although in a couple of instances that's still open to be determined. The interesting thing is the net result from the UFO case is a government entity was created, right with a lot of pushing actually from her committee. That entity is now actively
pursuing those those types of whistleblower leads. Unfortunately, here's You've got to love this transparency, right, So her efforts at transparency resulted in an agency being created that you know, it's folks, it's its own work, was going to heavily involve IGS, and now that is no longer transparent because it has national security implications. You got to love that, right, But I get so we don't. And I guess all I'm really getting at here is I'm not sure how
we're going to resolve this without a Hail Mary. So I'm not adverse to hail Mary's at this point in time.
Well, well, I feel like just the files that have been what we have now, just what we have now, and well still it's going to take a long time for people to look through them. They're not going to solve the assassination, like Larry said, but they'll provide a incredible amount of historic detail that can be used to better understand everything surrounding.
It, right, but definitely expanding, Like well.
Larry said, how do we get more stuff? You know, what has to be done to get to keep the pressure.
Right, We almost need an ARRB Part two to get you know, another and that required a huge outcry and all that, And of course we know the story of the Oliver Stone film. But with that in mind, I'd like to turn to something that is a bit interesting and has expanded now in people's knowledge base. And of course the Records Collection Actor is responsible for anybody even
being aware of it, and that's Operation Northwoods. Okay, we now know that not only did you know Northwoods everybody in case you don't know, let's just you know, give you the summary.
Once again.
You have this proposal from the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented to John F. Kennedy and I think nineteen sixty one regarding you know, a tactical and planning to cause you know, let's just be blunt and nasty about it, false flag possibilities for how to provoke an incident with Cuba, justify an invasion, even maybe you know, all this stuff and wild accusations about maybe you know, staging a a
US airliner being blown up with students on it. Uh, maybe without real students on it, but you know, we could stage this et cetera, remote control planes, all this wild stuff. JFK uh you know, said no basically to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But we find out that Northwoods was not completely abandoned and thrown in the garbage. Apparently they revisited this a couple of years later. We now know that we wouldn't have known any of this without the JFK records collection. But what do we know
regarding that now? Larry, are you aware of the Northwoods expansion of information and what do you have to say about that? Or even I went to some documents, if you like, I.
Am aware of that. And this is the point where I always get myself in trouble and I get to be a contrarian. So just be prepared incoming. North Woods is not at all unique. North Woods is simply was a contingency plan, right, and it came from Lansdale. It did not come from anybody else. That was part of Mond's mon Goose, and Lansdale was soliciting options. You know, had what had been done before the Cuba project hadn't worked. You know, the military said let's just go ahead and invade.
Lansdale knew that that's not something Kennedy really wanted to do, so under mong Goose, he went to the Joint chiefs and said, give me options, give me false flag options, you know, because we're not just going to invade. If we went that route, it would have to be under
a false flag. Now, I can take you back to nineteen sixty one, nineteen sixty and show you an exchange between Eisenhower and dulles Well, Eisenhower and Bissel actually where Eisenhower actually literally said, okay, CIA, give me false flags. Give me false flags. I don't care what they are. Maybe it's an attack on Guantanamo and I'll invade.
Do it.
False Flags and contingencies for false flags are not really anything new. That's why you see it come up again. In nineteen sixty two, nineteen sixty three, JFK had had task the military sink Atlantic with preparing for another Cuban invasion. I know that's wild. I know, people don't like to hear it. There are lots of documents on that, documents that even go as far as using poison gas in the invasion. And so the Joint chief's staff, we're not
talking about the Joint chiefs. We're talking about staff officers reporting to the chiefs who are supporting a tasking from the president. Okay, give me a plan if I have to decide to go into military, how do I do it? So they revive and go back to their staff and go give me another. Contingency plans are never abandoned, I
will tell you right now. In the Pentagon, under the Joint Chiefs somewhere, there's a whole set of staff plans for all sorts of contingencies, mostly not false flags, mostly what to do if the other guy does it first. But that's what those staff officers are there for. So I'm not surprised at all to see that it didn't go away, because it never goes away.
And in the past we even joked about, you know, possibly going to war with Canada, and that was a contingency plan that guarantees has developed. And the funny thing is, who knows, you know, at this point, do we really want to make a more fifty first state anyway.
A folder on Trump's desk for Lord's sake.
Right, So you know, yeah, contingency plans don't go away, but they don't necessarily land right on the important people's desks unless they ask for them.
Right. But anyway, Mike, did you want to add anything to this?
Oh? No, not right now?
Okay, fair enough, But Larry, what else could we have discovered? I mean, we got some nuances, we have some additions. I think at the very least, one could say that the constant denial over the decades from the CIA that we had no idea who Lee rby Oswald was. We don't know who this kid was. He's just some loser, some nobody and all this kind of thing. The CIA had nothing to do with him. We would have never hired him as an officer, we would have never used
him for anything. We would have never even looked at this guy. Apparently, well, you know, big shocker. Maybe not so true. And that's being backed up a little more in these new files. I think, what do you think?
Oh? Yeah, absolutely, I think that's it. Just it allows you to have a great laugh when David Phillips has quoted giving testimony that's saying Lee Harvey Oswell was never on our radar. It's like, David, did you look at the scope? I mean, you know, uh that that has been beaten to death.
Now.
I think a couple of interesting things. I did look at one document where the CIA was quite concerned with what they knew about Lee Harvey Oswell. They couldn't understand why he had gone into Russia through rel Sinki, how he'd gotten through real Sinki so easily, you know, had he had he shared information to get in whatever their puzzle about this, and they're they're puzzle by how he
came out with a Russian wife. I mean all of that kind that tends to argue that they didn't know what was going on with Lee Harvey Oswell going into Russia. That there there have been some there have been some other things about Oswald I think are really interesting though to me, when people say that these files are not helpful, again, they may not be helpful to the media who's looking for a smoking gun, but I will say we got a lot of information down at the grunt level of
identities and names and who's talking to. We now know that in new Orleans, Sylvia Odio's uncle, mister Quitart, although sorry I'm mispronouncing that name, was actually part of a spotter team that was supposed to be looking at Cuban supporters and Cuban agents. They were even using they had created a cover identity for this young woman who was supposedly his niece, created a cover for her using her
as a male stop. We're just beginning to realize what we didn't see where we should look, you know, names like you and I and David have discussed. We're seeing that that was much deeper than we realized at the time. So it's it's going to allow us to connect some dots. But that's that's the level of detail. The media would would never understand U and I wouldn't expect them to understand.
But that sort of thing we are getting out of the reactions that removed sources and names and you know reporting, that's that's good stuff.
So overall, what would you say, I mean, what would you add to this that we have learned that's new? I mean I asked some very specific questions, but I mean, what what have you discovered outside of the uh, you know, stuff that I brought up here? That might be of interest to people that you could say, look, I find this interesting or this is new to me. Is anything really new to you in these files?
Well, I'll just say one. You know, I barely looked at the stuff.
Okay, you know it's not even haven't been up for for a week. But I read Angleton's testimony to the Church Committee, and I just one little thing in there that was kind of interesting was.
He said that.
The KGB did investigation into the assassination for I think it was six months in nineteen sixty four or six months afterwards, and they this is what Angleton is saying, Okay, that that KGB concluded that right wing businessmen and Lynnon Johnson were behind the assassination.
And Angleton says something.
To the fact that he thinks the Warren Commission should have never closed the uh, the possibility that is a conspiracy off and left it open and this would be something that could have been investigated further, this KGB thing. But then he said something like, well, we would never be able to get the information, you know, we never would be able to get the KGB to give us the real information that they had.
Right, But then we had a turnover of Russian documents to Bill Clinton when he was in office at a certain point, and when those things were translated, we learned a little bit about the possibility that the Russians had investigated the Soviets excuse me, how investigated the circumstances, probably right away as soon as it happened, because they were clearly, you know, one of the prime suspects in the world's mind at that time, right, you know, this guy is
a COMMI sympathizer. Uh oh, he went to Russia before uh oh, you know will Minsk technically in Belarus, but nonetheless he went to the Soviet Union. This guy, it would be instant that people would start to think that the Soviet Union was.
A suspect, so to speak.
So it would have been practically malpracticed on their part not to conduct their own investigation. And indeed, I remember a television show in the eighties stating that the Russians had concluded. And I wasn't able to read all the Russian documents back then, but in the late eighties or early nineties, I think a TV show went and said, hey, there was a Russian investigation and the Soviets concluded that LBJ probably had something to do with it, which I
found kind of wild and interesting. But then again, they were in Texas. It's LBJ state. And oh, by the way, you know, we also have the different things that were going on there.
They might have tapped into the rumor mills that were of.
The same ilk that we hear about even today regarding that, so, I mean, possibilities are endless there. What are your thoughts about that, Larry, about the part about the KGB and all that.
Well, I think two things. I think seen more Angleton than we have seen before leads us to the conclusion that you might as well never believe anything Angleton says about anything if you get trapped yourself in Angleton. It was two things. He was devious at the core, and he would craft any of his statements to the benefit of the CIA. I mean, it was like a religion to him. And he was extremely intelligent. So you just you're hanging yourself out if you accept everything he says
at face value. And I've even shared my view of that with Jeff.
That's interesting because Jeff is going out now talking about how the birth of cointelpro is pretty much witnessed in these documents because it would be a cooperative effort between
the CIA and the FBI. Although most people think of cointelpro as pretty much Jadgar Hoover's baby, there was some level of cooperation there had to be at the time in order for them to conduct some of those operations that they did against the Black Panthers, against the UH, you know, the student unions, against the anti war protesters. I mean, there's a lot there that might be filled in if one carefully studies this UH and takes a look at Angleton's stuff. But again, his statements, he's lying
a lot, and he's lying in intricate ways. It's not blunt faced. You know, he says it's black when it's white. He's got a whole array of things going on here in his statements versus the reality or am I being unfair about this now?
And I think that's that's a very good point. If if you look at if you look at ht Lingual and the documents in this that talk about how Angleton and Cee I say created ht Lingual didn't tell the FBI they were doing it, which is is great. Okay, we're doing this against MAO coming to America and citizens and we haven't shared us with the FBI, but the FBI caught us, and then we had to explain what
we were doing. And then once we explain what we're doing, we even offer them the use of our facilities on mail. Intercept is humorous, but it certainly serves as a prototype. The excesses that were created there gives a good view into what Angleton really did with quintelpro, but how he managed to defend it. Because if you look at how he's defending ht Lingual to the FBI and kind of like diverting them and sweeping under the rug all the violations of you know, citizens' rights, he did the same
thing with Cointelpro. But I think what I wanted to get back and say, and I've talked to Jeff about this one thing we miss And this is another point of why I've been conservative about what's in the JFK collecttion is in regard to Angleton, because we all know that Angleton's files, that headquarters files for c I A SIG were turned over as part of collections, Okay, and so that's why we find some Angleton CIA SIG stuff in the in the records that we have released.
If you wouldn't mind to find.
Files, if you wouldn't mind.
Files which were literally hundreds of feet long were shielded. They were never turned over the Warrant Commission. So to think that we could understand what Angleton was doing with Oswald, or Angleton was doing with anything else is it's not reasonable because we know that when those hundreds of feet of records were brought back into the headquarters files after he left the CIA, a very large number of them were not admitted into the into the SA files. They
were shredded. Right, we don't have a destructional list for them, which we should have and we should be able to ask for Actually, that would be really interesting. We know that things were destroyed related to the RFK assass nation. So that just talking about Angleton, how he lies what he says that's in the current collection the JFK records has to be set set against what never made it
we we have. I think a lot of people have fooled themselves to think that somehow everything that was important was collected and if we could get it all, we'd see it all. And the answer was no, it wasn't right.
If you don't mind, before you go any further, just try and define for people. The difference between c I and you know, because maybe somebody doesn't recognize that or you know, if you don't mind, just to explain that, in Angleton's you know, many feet of files, what would what would they have been? Exactly are we talking about his personal stuff? Is this sort of like you know, Hoover's files, who disappear you know when he die?
I mean, you know, go ahead, exactly like Hoover's files. What we really find is, I mean, to run an agency, you've got to have a central file system.
Right And what is again, just if you don't mind.
But every everybody's got to feed into it. Counter Intelligence Operations Soviet Division c ICE is counter intelligence, although counter intelligence has two aspects. For Angleton, one of it is literally doing counter intelligence against other intelligence agencies, the Russians, the Cubans, whatever, counter intelligence against their agents. For Angleton, a big part of it was trying to identify moles, people that are actually linked to other intelligence agencies inside
our agency. So c I SIG is counter Intelligence special group, Okay, a special investigations group in particular. So yeah, surely CICIG would have fed a good deal of what they were doing into the into the headquarters files, okay, and they would have two one files on personalities and individuals and that would all appear there. But it's kind of that's
a good illusion, chuck to the the FBI. You have FBI headquarters files, right, and then you have those that are in Hoover's office his personal files.
Right.
Not everything goes into the headquarters files. You have Angleton's personal files, which are huge. But according to the people, we actually have a document, like a thirty page document from the guy who was charged with bringing him back inside the CIA. As they said, hundreds of feet of files so much bigger than Hoover's. They wouldn't fit in
his off in Angleton's office. So these are files that are Other officers in agencies FBI, c A may have what are called saft files that are sitting in their desks that have to do with operations they're working on, and maybe those haven't geled to the point that they were submitted to headquarters. You know, they're kind of like
working files. They're called saw files. They're working files. As far as Hoover and Angled are concerned, they have working files that are way bigger than what would fit in a desk stower fair enough.
So look, we've gone a full hour, okay, you know, just on this topic. And obviously, I mean, look, we're scratching the surface of I'm not sure if we got to eighty thousand pages, but I know we got to at least sixty thousand from what I could figure. But then again, i'm doing you know, rough estimates myself. Anyway, I think there's still some more to come. I don't know if we're going to ever see those FBI files that were you know, announced, but here we go again.
There's going to be a lot of pronouncements and announcements regarding this, and I think we need to temper our expectations about it based on the fact that some of this is political theater, pure and simple. I'm not making a judgment about Trump, hears people or anything. I'm just saying, in general, based on past experience, it's always some level a political theater. It's always some level of reaction to
the public's reaction, et cetera. This is always in play, and even more so in our current age of instant gratification social media. The President with his own social media platform, clearly, you know, every time he tweets or says something, the news media goes breaking news.
Here we go. You know, this is the way of things now.
So in the instant gratification media landscape we currently find ourselves attempting to traverse, there is a significant amount of tempering we need to do regarding these pronouncements and announcements. We're going to give you everything. We're going to give you all the files, absolute clarity. This is a new thing, whistleblowers. A lot of these terminologies being misused, misplaced, and misunderstood by not only the public, but in some cases the
people in power. And I think again, it's still a double edged sword where it works for us and against us simultaneously in some cases regarding what information we're actually going to get our hands on and what information we could potentially get our hands on in the future. Again, that's all my editorial, but let's let my two guest slash co hosts here tie a bow on this their own way. Mike, what would you have to say in conclusion.
Well, I just know the story isn't over yet.
I want to watch these hearings and they'll just be in a couple of days, and hope we will get more information.
Yeah, absolutely, I mean, what do we got a week? Yeah, about a week or so before. It's April first, right, so you know, here we go next week, Yeah, next week we should we'll see jeff Jefferson Morley testify. I don't know if there's gonna be one day two days. I think they said it would be a one day hearing for the public. But again, there's public hearings, there's going to be private hearings probably, and some stuff that you got to tune into c SPAN and just happen
to know what's happening in order to tune into. But either way, I think the media will continue to report on it as long as people show interest. But here we go again, you know, and it's deja vu all over again, as Yogi Barry used to say, We've been through this, Larry, and we continue to go through this. And what do you have to say in conclusion about you know, tonight's discussion or the files in general thus far. Obviously, stay tuned to Larry's blog, Larryhancock dot com, Larry dash
Handcock dot com. And also I have a funny feeling that Wallstreet Window dot Com might produce a piece or two that might have something to do with one of these things. Mike just might be inspired to write about it, I'm guessing, but you never know, Mike might be inspired to write about it. Maybe I'll publish it on ochelli
dot com as well. But because we are doing that front page thing there, and I am soliciting authors, and I've got quite a few submissions and even a handful on this particular topic which are going to go on the front page, maybe sooner than April seventh. I was planning on starting on April seventh with the first post, but we shall see. Larry, what would you like to do to tie a bow around this particular audio presentation.
I'm positive about it. I think Mike had said it earlier, this release of the whole thing as a unit, especially because the plan is, and I'll say right now, Mary Farrell Foundation is going to bring it over the whole thing from Nara and put it behind a search engine, which will make it much more searchable. Rex has already done some of that. For as historians, this is a goal mine, okay, regardless of the smoking gun thing. Just as far as pure history, it's a goal mine. So
that's positive. As far as misinformation, disinformation. We could hardly have more. So that doesn't scare me. It's promoting some dialogue and Chuck, you said it to me up to now. I'm willing to accept a double edged sword because I don't think we had a single edged sword. So I would say, go for it.
See at least something is happening, as opposed to no progress.
And you know the very.
Limited twenty seventeen and then what the Biden administration did I think in twenty twenty, if that's accurate, I forget, but sometime during his presidency, and this is what sparked a lawsuit from Mary Ferrell, because there is still I think it's still active, actually, the lawsuit against the US government regarding non compliance with the JFK Records Collection Acting.
By the way, I would state also, and I just want to get a yes or a note from you guys, and then we'll close this out to this point, regardless of what your views are, politics, etc.
Etc.
I would say that we still have a variety of agencies in the government in general in non compliance with its own law, which is the JFK Records Collection Act. Legally, we've seen lots of different non compliance in my opinion, including the fact that when the intelligence agencies went to Trump in the first place to ask for the delay, they didn't follow the guidelines for how it is you
even asked for the damn delay. You know, they didn't say specifically this item because they didn't do any of that. They just gave a general thing. And look, Trump is very transactional. Is supporter or not? You got to admit that. So the thing is, he went with it. He went with his best advice. Maybe it was Mike Pompeo that advised him. I don't know, not saying that I know any of the ins and outs of what's in the
man's mind. All I'm saying is that we definitely have seen non compliance from the government, regardless of who's allegedly in charge.
Okay, So I think that we have.
A long way to go regarding the government complying with its own mandates and laws here regarding the JFK Records Collection Act. So I was wondering what you think about that if we have more compliance to be had and therefore more information to be gotten or not, or you think this will put a cap on it all, maybe public interest will die off. Whatever, So your opinion. I'll start with Larry and finish with Mike.
I don't think there will be any automatic compliance it is. I don't think if anybody had been forcing the issue that the FBI would have looked and found whatever it found in those twenty three hundred documents. If somebody, I think is very much like we saw before when Enpick found the first set of zuppruterer for boards in the closet. The guy went to his boss and said, Boss, what should I do with this? And the boss said, oh God, we shouldn't have those anymore.
Destroy him.
I think if somebody turned up at the agency, inside the agency and tried to surface something new, it's doom from the start. So my view is unless you have some kind of forced compliance from the top down, we're done.
See and Mike, I passed the same question to you with one addendum, which is this, is it possible that our double edged sword, though here might cut in the direction of people not even knowing the gravity of what it is. They could release maybe somebody just for political reasons. We'll try to comply a bit more, but only with public pressure. I mean, what are your thoughts on compliance so far and what we could see in the future. Might just in general your opinion.
I've kind of lost my train of thought.
I'm sorry. I do that to people. My my bad.
He does that. Mikey does that to me all the time.
I do.
And Larry is such a great thinker, and I derail his trane of thought constantly.
I'm sorry, Mike, my apologies.
No.
I I wonder if there is a political agenda at work in this. Trump asked for the you know, I buy out of every single CIA officer a couple of weeks ago or when he got in office, and I've read stories that he's trying to redirect then the targets of the CIA into the Western hemisphere and drug dealing
and stuff, the you know. And I look at the National Security state since nine to eleven, and it's grown and grown and grown, right, And it looks to me like the D and I position that Tulca Gabbert had as that was created after nine to eleven, and it's doing what Alan Dalles used to do in the sense that the original job of the CIA director was supposed to be the top intelligence analyst person for the president,
and now that's her job. So I'm not really sure what the CIA does anymore, right, And I wonder if what is going on or maybe part of what's going on is that the issue of the Kenny assassination and the bad look it gives to the CIA, it could be used for political reasons, you know, diminish the agency or perform it or get rid of it, or make some sort of changes.
See that's exactly my final thought. And then yeah, I will played the close out music because this is this and we've been an hour and ten at it now, and that's quite a nuther.
It may not be a bad thing, you know, it's not. Yeahah, yeah, absolutely not necessarily the historical the objective historian of let's get the exact, you know, closest to the truth we can. Well here's what isn't necessarily the same, but it can help.
But but here's the thing for those of us that figure that, you know what, the CIA has had a long history of being dirty one way or another, whether you want to talk MK Ultra or you want to talk you know, the possible involvement with different Narco states, et cetera, regime change that we should have had no
involvement in, et cetera. Look if if somebody wanted to get in Trump's here and tell them, look, you want to make a real legacy here for yourself, sir, how about you follow through on JFK threat and you make it very, very public knowledge. I'm going to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and add to it to the win, because Trump is gonna do what JFK couldn't do. If somebody got that in his ear, we might see a hell of en upheaval in the national security state.
But then again, you got fifteen agencies or so nowadays as opposed to the handful that used to exist.
So I don't know.
I don't know how that would turn out, but it would be a hell of an interesting show. And if he makes progress on it, what can I do but cheer him on personally myself.
But that's just me again.
Larry Hancock was with me, Mike Swanson was with me, both of them authors in their own right. Go to Wallstreet Window dot com, sign up for the newsletter, and just keep track of Larry's work his blog, as well as his various appearances in different places larrydsh Hancock dot com, and I recommend every single book that Larry has put out, but most relevant and most recent would be the Oswald puzzle having to do with tonight's discussion Anyway. Links for
all that will be in the show notes. And no matter who you are, where you are, when you are, remember I am merely O'Kelly, all of you.
In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not earn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Pick up your copy of.
In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical form.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the Times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was up against.
For more information The War State.
Dot Com dot Com Radio, Chili dot Com.
The views expressed by caller stools there anyone else who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com, You not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly dot com or Joe o'chilli and we are not responsible.
We're getting stupidity which might ensue.
Thank you, yo yo. This Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action podcast presented by Wall Street Window, and you are listening to the o'chill effect revelation through conversation