151–160 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but he was really bad in some respects, that clashes with his public image/caricature in a way that kind of matters
In what respects?
But the most damning is that apparently the FBI has an audio recording of him laughing and even giving encouragement while another man rapes a woman in a hotel room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the FBI had really done it, I doubt they would have left classified records saying they had. Most likely, either the records would have been destroyed long ago, or they never would have created any in the first place Other possibility: they really didn’t do it, but there’s some classified record which sure makes it sound like they did. e.g. some record of J. Edgar Hoover joking about doing it
If the FBI did it off the record then technically it's not the FBI it's a rogue actor or cell that happens to work for the government If a bus driver for a federal prison snapped and shot him we could say the same thing. Where is the line between agency and private party if it's not drawn on the record?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if those transcripts don’t have incriminating evidence, should they still be released? If they interviewed everyone at that parade, what they were doing etc, and some of those people were completely uninvolved but maybe having affairs, or doing something immoral (whatever that is), then shouldn’t they be afforded privacy? Eg Imagine one would be mortified to have what sex toy was in their pocket at the time docum…
I think a simple redacted name would address that concern
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading the Epstein saga start to finish has been instructive as to how power works in this country. I previously had not understood it.
What you wrote is very interesting (and intriguing). What readings would you recommend?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if those transcripts don’t have incriminating evidence, should they still be released? If they interviewed everyone at that parade, what they were doing etc, and some of those people were completely uninvolved but maybe having affairs, or doing something immoral (whatever that is), then shouldn’t they be afforded privacy? Eg Imagine one would be mortified to have what sex toy was in their pocket at the time docum…
I think a simple redacted name would address that concern
There were people in the crowd who can easily be identified, too. For example, Zapruder’s testimony would have to leave out that he shot a movie and was life on television that day, and quite a few other details to anonymize it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most likely outcome is docs are released and there is still mystery.
Put me on record as being in the "nothing ever happens" camp: Oswald done it, the grassy knoll is just a particularly grassy knoll, and the remaining 1% or whatever unreleased files contain a fat nothingburger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put me on record as being in the "nothing ever happens" camp: Oswald done it, the grassy knoll is just a particularly grassy knoll, and the remaining 1% or whatever unreleased files contain a fat nothingburger.
You still have to explain the magic bullet impossibilities, fully intact bullet on the stretcher, Oswald as known CIA asset (CIA reports show this), etc. None of this is really explainable by the official story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what respects?
He is known to be a womanizer and to have used his fame to sleep with women, and may have fathered some illegitimate children. But the most damning is that apparently the FBI has an audio recording of him laughing and even giving encouragement while another man rapes a woman in a hotel room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy. You want people to tell the truth to government investigations in the future, and not hold something back because they think in 15 years the government might just release a transcript of everything you told them.
That's a legitimately good reason. Are the entirety of those remaining 1700 documents redacted? If so, then they should just redact parts that would uniquely identify those last surviving people and release the rest of the documents.