Indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and business partner Richard Gates were unsealed Monday by special counsel Robert Mueller, the first charges in his investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential election. (A third, against former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, was also unsealed.)
The Manafort indictment has little to do with any possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It concerns Manafort and Gates’s extensive lobbying on behalf of the Ukrainian government which, the indictment alleges, involved numerous violations of federal law, including extensive money laundering. Conspicuously absent from the indictment is any mention of the 2016 campaign or President Donald Trump himself.
Read the full indictment for yourself here. Here are six takeaways from it:
1. The Indictment is Mostly Concerned With Manafort’s Foreign Lobbying
In contravention of federal law, the indictment charges, Manafort and Gates spent eight years lobbying on behalf of the Ukrainian government, then-President Victor Yanukovych (who would eventually flee to Russia), and Yanukovych’s party, the Party of Regions.
“from 2006 until 2014… MANAFORT and GATES engaged in a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign in the United States… without registering and providing the disclosures provided by law,” the indictment reads.
Those lobbying activities were focused on shifting policymaker’s perspective on Yanukovych’s regime, as well as his jailing of political rival Yulia Tymoshenko.
Such lobbying activities are illegal unless (among other things) the lobbyist registers with the federal government under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires that lobbyists on behalf of foreign governments disclose for whom they are lobbying, what they are lobbying about, and how much they are paid for their lobbying.
Manafort registered as a foreign agent in June of this year. However, prior to that, he failed to disclose his lobbying activities, instead creating an elaborate scheme to obscure his lobbying from federal oversight.
2. Manafort’s Money Laundering Via Offshores Accounts
Manafort’s lobbying paid handsomely, but, because it was outside of the federal government’s purview, those payments had to be hidden from sight. Manafort and Gates dealt with this issue, the indictment alleges, by funneling money through offshore bank accounts.
Because the money was held in offshore accounts, Manafort used wire transfers to purchase property and home improvements for his homes across three different states.
“In order to use the money in the offshore nominee accounts of the MANAFORT-GATES entities without paying taxes on it, MANAFORT and GATES caused millions of dollars in wire transfers from these accounts to be made for goods, services, and real estate,” the indictment reads.
In total, Manafort wired over $12 million between 2008 and 2014. Said money was not disclosed, in contravention of the Bank Secrecy Act and IRS reporting obligations.
3. The Indictment Has Nothing to Do with Manafort’s Involvement in the Trump Campaign
Manafort was hired as Trump’s campaign chairman in March of 2016; he resigned in August, after information about the foreign lobbying—for which he now faces charges—surfaced. Importantly, none of the charges that Mueller and company have brought against Manafort pertain to his time as campaign chairman, instead concerning the period between when he was hired by Yanukovych and when Yanukovych fled Ukraine in 2014.
This is well within Mueller’s purview. In the original letter appointing Mueller, Acting/Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein empowered him to investigate not only ties between the Russian government and Trump’s campaign, but also “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
4. The Charges Are Not All That Surprising
Manafort’s ties to the Ukrainian government have been public knowledge for some time. Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign was prompted by the revelation that Yakunovych had paid him some $12.7 million in off-the-books, cash payments between 2007 and 2012.
Even earlier, in March of 2016, Tymoshenko brought suit against Manafort, among others, alleging that he had worked to target her in a revenge scheme for her impeding the business of Ukrainian gas tycoon Dmitry Firtash.
Furthermore, Mueller’s interest in Manafort has been apparent for months. Back in August, the FBI raided Manafort’s home under the auspices of a warrant issued in connection with Mueller’s investigation.
In other words, the Manafort indictment does not tell us much that we did not already know, especially about to what extent—if any—the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
5. Conspiracy Against the United States Is Not What You Probably Think It Is
Manafort faces nine charges overall: one for false statements, two for his failure to register under FARA, five for money laundering and failure to disclose his accounts, and one charge, drawing a lot of attention, of “conspiracy against the United States.” Out of context, this sounds like, well, conspiracy against the United States, a charge that to the naive reader sounds a lot like “treason.”
The reality is far less dramatic. “Conspiracy against the United States” is a crime whereby “two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.”
The relevant portion of this section of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 371) is about conspiring to commit an offense against an agency of the United States. The first charge against Manafort and Gates alleges that they conspired to defraud the Department of Justice and of the Treasury—specifically, by laundering money and failing to register under FARA.
In other words, the charge of conspiracy is simply because the two men worked together; another charge to stack on top of the lengthy list brought by Mueller.
Net Neutrality activists have warned that a non-neutral internet will be an invitation for ISPs to create “plans” where you have to choose what services you can access, and we can look to Portugal for an immediate sampling of what will happen if the FCC gets its way: Portuguese ISP MEO is offering a series of plans for its mobile data service where you pay 5 euro ($5.80) to access a handful of messaging services, 5 euro more to use social media, and 5 euro more for video-streaming services.
…the “Surgeon General’s Report” on the assassination stated that the first bullet entered the President’s throat below the adams apple, clearly showing that two persons were involved with the first shot being fired from the bridge across the park way in front of the car. To further substantiate this, POTITO said there was a bullet hole in the wind shield of the President’s car…
In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography of the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine that had been reported by six credible witnesses. I revisited that evidence today, and am more convinced than ever that the bullet hole in the limousine windshield is what I am looking at in those images. But the readers of this piece don’t have to take my word for it — you can examine the images yourself, and make up your own minds. The evidence is contained in one of the banned, suppressed episodes of Nigel Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy — episode 7 in the series, called “The Smoking Guns,” which was aired in 2003, and then removed from circulation by The History Channel in response to intense political pressure by former LBJ aides Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers.
I’ll tell you about the stunning evidence I have found in that episode at the end of this article, but first we need to set the stage by reviewing the eyewitness testimony about the damage to the windshield observed the day of JFK’s assassination, on Friday, November 22nd, 1963; as well as three days later, on Monday, November 25th, 1963.
Before I reveal the details about the “new” photographic evidence I am talking about here, let’s review the Big Picture, the “evidentiary landscape” on this issue (see pages 1439-1450 of Volume V of my book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, for full details):
(1) Dallas motorcycle patrolmen Stavis Ellis and H. R. Freeman both observed a penetrating bullet hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield…You could put a pencil through it…you could take a regular standard writing pencil…and stick [it] through there.” Freeman corroborated this, saying: “[I was] right beside it. I could of [sic] touched it…it was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.” [David Lifton published these quotations in his 1980 book, Best Evidence.]
(2) St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Richard Dudman wrote an article published in The New Republic on December 21, 1963, in which he stated: “A few of us noted the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
(3) Second year medical student Evalea Glanges, enrolled at Southwestern Medical University in Dallas, right next door to Parkland Hospital, told attorney Doug Weldon in 1999: “It was a real clean hole.” In a videotaped interview aired in the suppressed episode 7 of Nigel Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy, titled “The Smoking Guns,” she said: “…it was very clear, it was a through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back…it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.” At the time of the interview, Glanges had risen to the position of Chairperson of the Department of Surgery, at John Peter Smith Hospital, in Fort Worth. She had been a firearms expert all her adult life.
(4) Mr. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, November 25th, he discovered the JFK limousine — a unique, one-of-a-kind item that he unequivocally identified — in the Rouge Plant’s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it in shape — and to then get the new windshield back to the B building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly being rebuilt. Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview): “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back.” Whitaker told Weldon that he eventually became superintendent of his division and was placed in charge of five plant divisions. He also told Weldon that the original windshield, with the bullet hole in it, had been broken up and scrapped — as ordered — after the new windshield had been made.
When Doug Weldon interviewed Whitaker in August of 1993, his witness insisted on anonymity. Weldon reported on the story without releasing Whitaker’s name in his excellent and comprehensive article titled: “The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963,” which was published in Jim Fetzer’s anthology Murder in Dealey Plaza, in 2000. After Weldon interviewed Whitaker in August of 1993, Mr. Whitaker subsequently — on November 22, 1993 (the 30th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination) — wrote down all he could remember about the events he witnessed involving the Presidential limousine and its windshield. After George Whitaker’s death in 2001, his family released his written testament to Nigel Turner, who with their permission revealed Mr. Whitaker’s name, as well as the text of his “memo for history,” in episode 7 of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, “The Smoking Guns.”
In “The Smoking Guns,” the text of Whitaker’s memo can be read on the screen employing freeze frame technology with the DVD of the episode. It said, in part: “When [I] arrived at the lab the door was locked. I was let in. There were 2 glass engineers there. They had a car windshield that had a bullet hole in it. The hole was about 4 or 6 inches to the right of the rear view mirror [as viewed from the front]. The impact had come from the front of the windshield. (If you have spent 40 years in the glass [illegible] you know which way the impack [sic] was from.”
(5) The sixth credible witness to a bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine was Secret Service agent Charles Taylor, Jr., who wrote a report on November 27, 1963 in which he detailed his activities providing security for the limousine immediately after the car’s return to Washington following the assassination. The JFK limousine and the Secret Service follow-up car known as the “Queen Mary” arrived at Andrews AFB aboard a C-130 propeller-driven cargo plane at about 8:00 PM on November 22, 1963. Agent Taylor rode in the Presidential limousine as it was driven from Andrews AFB to the White House garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W. In his report about what he witnessed inside the White House garage during the vehicle’s inspection, he wrote: “In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.”
SUMMARY OF THE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WINDSHIELD BULLET HOLE
Summarizing, six credible witnesses — Stavis Ellis, H. R. Freeman, Richard Dudman, Evalea Glanges, George Whitaker, and Charles Taylor — all reported seeing a bullet hole in the windshield of JFK’s limousine either on the day of the assassination (for five of the six witnesses), or on the following Monday (in the case of Mr. Whitaker, who did not see the limousine and its windshield until he reported to work at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant, in Detroit, on Monday morning, November 25th, 1963).
Two of these witnesses — Evalea Glanges and George Whitaker — were absolutely positive that the bullet causing the damage had been a shot from the front, which had entered the front surface of the windshield, and exited the inside surface.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Because if true, the windshield bullet evidence alonedisproves the lone assassin myth aggressively promoted by the U.S. government for 49 years now, since the accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was supposedly firing from above and behind the limousine as it traveled down Elm Street.
THE WINDSHIELD EVIDENCE WAS TWICE SWITCHED-OUT — SUBSTITUTED — BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT…
The windshield in evidence today at the National Archives is not the windshield that was in the Presidential limousine on Elm Street, in Dallas, on November 22, 1963. It simply cannot be. Why? Remember, according to George Whitaker, Sr. of the Ford Motor Co., the original was destroyed, per company orders, after it was used as a template to make a replacement on November 25th, 1963.
But it gets much worse than that. The first replacement, the one installed by Whitaker’s two lab technicians in Detroit, was damaged on the wrong side by an incompetent Secret Service organization (incompetent not only at protecting the 35th President, but also in implementing a cover-up). Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman (who rode in the right front seat of the limousine in Dallas) testified before the Warren Commission, in March of 1964, that when he examined the windshield (obviously the replacement, installed by Whitaker’s team in Detroit) on November 27th, it was smooth on the outside, and damaged on the inside. This is consistent with damage caused by an impact on the front side of the windshield. (Safety glass exhibits damage on the opposite side from which it is struck). Researcher Robert P. Smith (as reported by David Lifton in Best Evidence) interviewed a Mr. Bill Ashby, crew leader at the Arlington Glass Company, who told Smith he removed the limousine’s windshield in Washington, D.C. on November 27th; this occurred after Roy Kellerman had felt the interior surface earlier that day and determined it to be damaged on the inside, and smooth on the outside.
But the windshield at the National Archives today exhibits long cracks — not a through-and-through bullet hole — and is damaged on the outside, which is the opposite of what Kellerman noted by physical examination on November 27th.
Co-owner Willard Hess of the automotive firm Hess and Eisenhardt in Cincinnati, Ohio told Doug Weldon that his company also replaced the windshield in the Presidential limousine, and that the glass removed was standard safety glass — consistent with what George Whitaker said his team reinstalled in the limousine in Detroit, immediately after the assassination. Hess and Eisenhardt replaced the standard safety glass with special bullet resistant glass made by the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. (Presumably, the windshield removed by Hess and Eisenhardt was the second new windshield installed — by the Arlington Glass Company — on November 27th, 1963, and is the one in the National Archives today.) Mr. Hess told Weldon that the windshield his company removed was not damaged at the time it was removed.
The clear implication here is that the windshield in the Archives today, which exhibits cracks but not a bullet hole, was intentionally damaged by someone involved in the cover-up AFTER its removal by Hess and Eisenhardt.
This distressing (and depressing) tale of cover-up, deceit, and deception mirrors what was going on with the JFK medical evidence (namely, the President’s cranial wounds and throat wound; and the autopsy photographs and x-rays), and the Zapruder film, during the weekend following the assassination — that is, alteration and gross substitution. The pattern is the same, and the pattern is one of lying, and intentionally covering up the truth, by destroying some evidence, and substituting altered evidence in its place. All of this substitution of evidence — tampering with wounds prior to the commencement of the autopsy through clandestine post mortem surgery; the alteration of some of the key autopsy photographs and x-rays (and the destruction of others); and the alteration of the Zapruder film — was all intended to suppress evidence of shots from the front (i.e., proof of conspiracy), so the government could more easily promote its lone assassin cover story.
…AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT LATER SUBORNED PERJURY IN THE MATTER OF THE DAMAGE TO THE LIMOUSINE WINDSHIELD
Unfortunately for Mr. Charles Taylor of the Secret Service, he — like Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition in the 17th century — was forced to recant, for he had committed heresy when he wrote in his official report on November 27th that he had observed a bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine as the car was closely examined in the White House garage the evening of the assassination, in 1963. In his 1976 recantation, an affidavit prepared for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Taylor indicated that he changed his mind after examining the windshield stored in the Archives on December 19, 1975. Like Galileo, when prompted by his inquisitors, Taylor reversed himself, saying: “…I never examined this apparent hole [on November 22, 1963] to determine if there had been any penetration of the glass, nor did I even get a good look at the windshield in well-lighted surroundings…”. This is hardly credible. SA Kinney drove JFK’s limousine from Andrews AFB to the White House garage on November 22nd, 1963, and Taylor was the only passenger. The back seat bench (as revealed by horrifying color photographs taken in the White House garage) was still covered with gore, so we know Taylor did not sit there amidst the blood and brain tissue; and it is most doubtful that he sat in one of the uncomfortable jump seats in the middle of the car. Surely, he sat in the right front seat of the limousine all the way from Andrews AFB, to the garage where it was examined that evening — an ideal spot for noticing the bullet hole in the windshield, which would have been within arm’s reach for him. Inevitably, when the interior of the car was disassembled that evening inside the White House garage by FBI and Secret Service agents working together, the lights must have been on for this crucial joint inspection! Taylor reported on their activities in detail in his report, prepared on November 27th, 1963. The report makes clear that the agents could see what they were doing. In that context, consider Taylor’s written statement in his 1976 HSCA affidavit, about thirteen years later, in which he stated: “I have no doubt that the cracks [seen in the windshield placed in the Archives and in official photographs]…cracks in the inner layers of the glass only, are the ones I noticed on the trip from Andrews Air Force Base…it is clear to me that my use of the word ‘hole’ to describe the flaw in the windshield was incorrect.” Taylor’s sworn affidavit in 1976, shortly after he was asked by someone in government to examine the switched-out windshield deposited in the Archives, can only be viewed and described for what it was: perjury.
PREVIOUSLY KNOWN PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF A WINDSHIELD BULLET HOLE
As I documented in chapter 15 of my book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, the famous “Altgens photo” taken on Elm Street, the one reported to be equivalent to Zapruder frame 255 in the extant film, appears to many who study it to show a bullet hole in the windshield in some of the versions of that photograph that have been published: namely, in The Torch Is Passed (1964), on page 16; in Groden’s The Killing of a President, on pages 30 and 36; on page 314 of Trask’s Pictures of the Pain; and in the version published in Fetzer’s Murder in Dealey Plaza, on page 149. The apparent bullet hole detected by many viewers in the Altgens photo appears to be just to the right of the rightmost edge of the rear view mirror, as seen from the front. But there is another Altgens photo taken on Elm Street, showing Jackie Kennedy on the trunk of the limousine after the assassination, which also shows damage in the area of the windshield that is left-of-center, as seen from inside the car. Frustratingly, the damage seen in this photograph appears to be some cracks emanating from a frosted white area of the windshield that is left-of-center. It is most clearly seen in The Torch Is Passed, on page 17; in my view, it is unclear whether we are looking at a round bullet hole with two cracks emanating from it, or simply cracks. The poor quality versions of this image published in The Killing of a President (on page 42) and in Pictures of the Pain (on page 316) are useless in resolving this issue.
Therefore, any additional photographic evidence captured the day of the assassination might prove decisive in resolving the windshield debate, once and for all — which leads us back to the headline of this journal entry: “Photographic Evidence of Bullet Hole in JFK Limousine Windshield Hiding in Plain Sight.”
HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT SINCE 2003
On pages 1473-1474 of Volume V my book (in chapter 16), I wrote about the circumstances in which The History Channel, in 2003, was forced by political pressure and by threat of legal action to stop airing the remarkably popular seventh, eighth, and ninth episodes of the series The Men Who Killed Kennedy: “The Smoking Guns,” “The Love Affair,” and “The Guilty Men.” Not only did The History Channel agree to stop broadcasting the three episodes (which were getting very high ratings), but it also pulled all of the DVDs from stores (where they were selling like hotcakes), and agreed to stop selling the three episodes, which were packaged together in a two-disc, three episode A & E network video product titled: The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Final Chapter, Cat. No. AAE-71255. (Thanks to Phil Singer of Chicago, I own a set of these three banned DVDs.)
Not only did former LBJ aides Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers engage in a high-profile publicity campaign against The History Channel, but an enraged Jack Valenti (who had long been the chief lobbyist in the nation’s capital for the motion picture industry) summoned the executive producer of episodes 7, 8, and 9 (including the LBJ episode, “The Guilty Men”) — Dolores Gavin — to Washington, D.C., where she was given the “Valenti treatment,” i.e., browbeaten and intimidated in private, in a rather brutal fashion. (I was informed of this by a Hollywood-based professional who had worked with her on the project; Dolores Gavin herself was the source of the information.) Shortly afterwards, The History Channel succumbed to this overt censorship and all three episodes were added to a new, twenty-first century Index Expurgatorius.
The presumptive cause of this Holy Edict of the American Establishment was the LBJ episode, “The Guilty Men,” which fingered Lyndon Baines Johnson with involvement in the JFK assassination conspiracy. But in retrospect, I now wonder if perhaps the real, principal (but unacknowledged) cause of the suppression was actually the episode titled “The Smoking Guns.” The LBJ episode may have simply been the excuse to ban “The Smoking Guns,” for this episode contains multiple evidentiary proofs of a U.S. government cover-up of the Kennedy assassination evidence.
THE STUNNING CONTENT OF “THE SMOKING GUNS”
There is some “B-roll” in “The Smoking Guns” episode, only a little over two seconds long, which definitely appears to show the bullet hole in the limousine windshield — the through-and-through bullet hole described by the six credible witnesses cited above. This is shown during the segment of the program in which Evalea Glanges was interviewed. This “B-roll” footage appears between the times of 14:02 and 14:04 on the DVD, and consists of a total of 84 video frames (there are 30 video frames per second in a U.S. television broadcast). The black-and-white images appear to come from standard 16 mm B & W newsreel footage, taken by a stocky man wearing a hat who had approached the Presidential limousine as it was parked outside the Parkland Hospital emergency room (and before the bubble top was installed). The point of view (POV) of the camera was that of someone sitting in the limousine, or rather standing just beside it and to the right side. The camera is pointed at the inside surface of the windshield from behind — that is the POV. One man in a suit and tie can be seen standing on the front side, or forward of, the windshield, and two DPD motorcycle patrolmen (are they Ellis and Freeman?) can be seen leaning in and examining the windshield. What looks to me like a through-and-through bullet hole is visible in all 84 video frames, left of center on the windshield (adopting the POV of the camera) and approximately halfway down from the top, although these are only rough approximations. The location appears to be entirely consistent with that described by Charles Taylor and George Whitaker (above).
I wish to make something very clear here: you cannot access the images I am describing above in the U-Tube segment in which this episode has been put up on the internet. First, the timing is different in the U-Tube segment (13:08, vice 14:02), because the U-Tube segment was copied from the broadcast. [The factory DVD location of the clip is at a later point in the program, at 14:02, because of advertising material inserted at the beginning of the DVD.] Second, the size of the U-Tube presentation is so small on one’s computer screen, and the resolution so poor in comparison with a big screen HD television, that you can forget seeing this windshield bullet hole on U-Tube. The viewer needs the factory-produced DVD; a good DVD player with functioning frame-by-frame advance; and a big screen, High Definition (1080p) TV. The bullet hole shows up clearly on my 52″ SONY Bravia television. So anyone concerned with doing research here simply must obtain the factory-produced DVD.
Now, no doubt the “lone-nutter” crowd — both those who are in denial of the reality of an American coup in 1963 (because they can’t handle the truth), and the U.S. government’s third-party surrogates in the midst of the research community (whose job it is to cast doubt on all new research pointing to conspiracy and cover-up) — will react violently to this essay, and that is predictable. But you don’t have to listen to their opinions…EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. Just obtain a factory-produced DVD of “The Smoking Guns,” by hook or crook (or E-Bay); put it in your DVD player; go to the specified time of 14:02 into the program; and then examine the 84 video frames, one at a time, on an HD big screen TV. You will find that video frames 1, 15, 31, 37, 47, 59, and 71 best depict the bullet hole. The 16 mm camera was hand-held, so there is some motion and some blurring of the images, and that is why some video frames are more clear than others. In my opinion, the best frames are #1 and # 71 in the windshield sequence.
Then consider how dangerous this two-seconds of “B-roll” footage is to the U. S. government’s contrived position on the assassination as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination: a through-and-through hole in the limousine windshield, made by a frontal shot traveling from front-to-back (as stated by George Whitaker and Evalea Glanges), all by itself, demolishes the lone-assassin myth still being perpetuated by the U.S. government and by its surrogates in the mainstream media in America. No wonder the establishment in America felt this episode had to be suppressed.
And consider the other reasons for its suppression. This episode also features Dr. David Mantik, M.D., PhD., eloquently and clearly discussing his conclusion — based on his nine visits to the National Archives to view the autopsy materials — that the autopsy photographs of the rear of JFK’s head are photographic forgeries. It also features former USIA photographer Joe O’Donnell discussing how White House photographer Robert Knudsen showed him two sets of post mortem photos of JFK’s head wounds late in 1963: one set that consisted of authentic, pre-alteration images, showing the true entry and exit wounds in the head (an entry wound high in the right forehead, and a large exit wound in the right rear of the skull); and another set of images that was post-alteration, with the entry wound high in the forehead no longer visible, and the back of the head seemingly intact. It also features Dr. Gary Aguilar, M.D., discussing in convincing terms G. Robert Blakey’s suppression of the content of interviews the HSCA conducted with JFK autopsy witnesses, and Blakey’s intentional misrepresentation of the contents of those interviews in the HSCA’s report; the JFK Records Act resulted in the “premature release” of the suppressed autopsy witness interviews in 1993, and the “Big Lie” in the HSCA report was exposed. (The HSCA report, in volume 7, stated that all of the Dallas doctors had to be wrong about the exit wound they recalled in the back of JFK’s head, since all of the autopsy witnesses the HSCA had interviewed said the wounds they observed matched the autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact. The release of the interview reports in 1993 revealed that the HSCA had lied about what those witnesses had said.) All of this, and more, was presented in this one key episode.
So ask your friends, go on E-Bay, and one way or another, get your hands on the banned episode of The Men Who Killed Kennedy titled “The Smoking Guns,” and see the bullet hole in the windshield yourself.Then compare it to the photographs of the windshield in the National Archives, and ask yourself what this sorry episode says about the integrity of our national government.
President Kennedy was killed in Dealey Plaza by a crossfire, meted out by shooters firing from multiple directions, from both the front and behind — therefore, he was felled by a conspiracy, by definition. The windshield bullet hole evidence, all by itself, proves a conspiracy; and its clumsy and unsuccessful suppression, all by itself, is proof of a government cover-up of the facts in President Kennedy’s assassination, since the U.S. government controlled all of the windshield evidence. The facts contained in this tale prove that we had a coup in America in 1963, and that powerful and influential people were still covering it up in 1975, and 1976, and 1979, and in 2003. Former CIA Director William Colby once said that everyone of any significance in the U.S. media was owned by the CIA. I believe it — otherwise, this windshield nonsense would have been exposed long ago on a show like “60 Minutes.”
I have expressed here my own strong opinion about what is shown in the 84 video frames visible in this documentary. A good follow-on step here would be to obtain the original 16 mm camera footage (presumably a black and white negative, not some multi-generational stock footage), perform a high-resolution digital scan of the film frames in Hollywood, and have them analyzed by motion picture professionals in the film industry who have no axe to grind — not by Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum (who has never been to film school, or worked in the motion picture industry), or by any member of the JFK research community who has espoused a conspiracy or cover-up in the assassination. A true, third-party independent analysis of the camera negative, or of the earliest surviving generation of this newsreel footage, would be a good next step in the process of evaluating these images.
I have sounded the alarm here — and I am not afraid of a truly independent third-party analysis. Let’s do a little honest science here, and “let the chips fall where they may.”
This is oversimplified and doesn’t touch on all aspects of cryptocurrency. It’s just my take on it.
What does it mean to mine cryptocurrency?
Let me try to explain the relevant concepts of cryptocurrency first.
In usual currencies, e.g. the US dollar, there’s someone controlling and printing money, e.g. the US Treasury Department. Therefore it’s centralized.
A cryptocurrency is decentralized, means that it’s not controlled by any bank or government. How then do we print money for cryptocurrencies?
The solution: allow everyone to print money. But very slowly.
This is cryptocurrency mining.
To expand: to mine for cryptocurrency (e.g. bitcoin), someone has to download and run software that solves a meaningless but extremely computer-intensive maths problem, like what is the 1-billionth number behind the decimal place of the square root of 2? (Very wrong example but you get my gist). Someone (Mr. X) will have to run their computer for 1 hour to get this answer, and then the software will give them 1 bitcoin. Then the maths problem iterates to asking the 1-billionth and 1 number etc., and the solving goes on.
The bitcoin is now basically electronic money. Like usual currencies, it is traded in currency exchange markets, which will give you 1 bitcoin equals 100 US Dollars, which of course changes every second/minute/hour/day.
How does it help generate money for websites?
As you can see from the above, basically solving maths problems on computers will generate money.
How do I make it faster?
Solution 1: Buy a faster computer
This is already being done, and miners are buying so much that the supply of fast computers can’t keep up, and are now much more expensive than a year ago.
Solution 2: Use many computers
What if I can use computers that are not mine? Like other people’s computers? Some websites have found a way to make visitors of the websites run a program to solve the aforementioned maths problem for the website. It will run very slowly, but that doesn’t matter to the website owner, because he’ll now have millions of visitors running the program for him all at once.
Hopefully that was understandable. It doesn’t touch on many other aspects of cryptocurrency which is even more mind-boggling, but you’re right, it is a very futuristic concept and a whole paradigm shift in thinking about currency. So don’t worry about not understanding about it, you’re probably in the majority.
The bill that is ostensibly designed to ban bump-stock devices is gaining traction in the House of Representatives, thanks to the bipartisan group of legislators who are working on it. However, the bill is written in a terribly ambiguous way, that one could read into the text an effective ban on all semi-automatic weapons.
Late last week, I wrote about how the bill’s licentiously ambiguous language can be construed to mean that any combination of parts that is designed to make the rifle fire at a higher rate would become illegal. That means new trigger groups, bolt-carrier groups, gas blocks, charging handles, bolt release, mag release, etc. could fall under the bill’s language because the ambiguity (and that’s by design).
Rather than specifically targeting bump-stocks, the gun-grabbers made the language to be as expansive as possible, so that all sorts of things can be read into the language. Rather than letting the text speak for itself, by providing specific things that are clearly and properly promulgated, the bill is written with the explicit purpose of expanding their power over us, and providing themselves any sort of legal avenue possible to come after anything we do with our firearms.
In fact, it’s so bad that the language may even effectively prohibit all semi-automatic firearms, as Sean Davis discusses at The Federalist.
“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.
The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.
With that in mind, no one should be surprised that’s the case. If you are surprised, you’re not paying attention.
The gun-grabbers will do anything possible to take your right to bear arms. They will use any loophole, any little obscure thing to attack you and your self-defense rights. They simply do not care if it’s unconstitutional, if you are innocent, or if it will do anything to stop more mass shootings.
They. Do. Not. Care.
One of the other issues that Sean Davis discussed was the fact that there are no grandfathering provisions included in the bill. Even if the enforcement agencies only targeted bump-stocks, there is not an enforcement method that does not run afoul of the prohibition of ex pos facto laws in Article I section ix of the Constitution, as I discussed last week.
It is because of that clause of the Constitution that all-out confiscation measures are doubly problematic for gun-grabbers; they cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and they cannot make laws that make a certain action retroactively illegal.
Possession of the devices would be illegal 90 days after the bill became law. Even if one had purchased the device legally, it would then become illegal to possess. The only way to legitimately enforce this law is by confiscation, by finding out sales records, searching those who have bought the devices. It’s simply a matter of fact.
But it just gets worse as one looks at the language of the bill. While the bill advocates for an explicitly unconstitutional ex post facto law, the language also enables one to read into it whatever they want regarding devices that enhance the rate of fire on a given firearm.
But alas, possession of the device will become illegal if the bill passes, even if the device was bought legally. Would there be just compensation if the feds mandate confiscation of these devices, as per the Fifth Amendment?
Don’t count on it; like I stated before, they do not care. They will do whatever possible to take away your guns. Though they have not yet, don’t doubt for a second that they will if given any chance whatsoever.
This bill is that chance. Do not let them take advantage of it.
As the mainstream media provides relentless coverage of the Harvey Weinstein Hollywood sex scandal, there is one major piece of legislation it is ignoring, and if passed, it will have massive repercussions for all Americans.
More than 40 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, have joined together to condemn the USA Liberty Act, a trendy name for a dangerous bill that reauthorizes and creates additional loopholes for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the coalition noted that one of the most obvious problems with the USA Liberty Act is that it fails to address concerns with the “backdoor search loophole,” which allows the government to“conduct warrantless searches for the information of individuals who are not targets of Section 702, including U.S. citizens and residents.”
“The USA Liberty Act departs from the recommendation made by the President’s Review Group on Surveillance, appropriations amendments that have previously passed the House, and urgings of civil society organizations, which would have required a probable cause warrant prior to searching the Section 702 database for information about a U.S. citizen or resident absent narrow exceptions. As written, it raises several concerns. First, the bill’s most glaring deficiency is that it does not require a warrant to access content in cases where the primary purpose is to return foreign intelligence. This is an exception that threatens to swallow the rule.”
Not surprisingly, the USA Liberty Act claims that it will “better protect Americans’ privacy” by requiring the government to have “a legitimate national security purpose” before searching an individual’s database. Then when they do have that purpose established, they will be required to “obtain a court order based on probable cause to look at the content of communications, except when lives or safety are threatened, or a previous probable cause-based court order or warrant has been granted.”
However, as The Free Thought Project previously reported, what the USA Liberty Act does not advertise is the fact that the FBI’s “legitimate national security purpose” could be justified by just about any reason the agency chooses to give, and agents will only need supervisory authority in order to search Americans’ metadata.
As the coalition noted in its letter, “the bill’s current language leaves room for the government to conduct queries and access content for law enforcement purposes without a warrant,” which should be considered a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.
“The current language does not make clear that the government must have a warrant to access content for law enforcement searches where the purpose may not be to specifically obtain evidence of a crime, or in cases where there may be a dual foreign intelligence and criminal purpose. As such, the bill could still permit the government to conduct queries and access content without a warrant in cases involving criminal investigations and prosecutions.”
The coalition also criticized the USA Liberty Act’s broad consent and emergency exceptions, noting that, “the emergency provision does not parallel analogous provisions in FISA and require imminence or that the government go back to the FISA court for a warrant after beginning the emergency surveillance.”
While the government claims the purpose of FISA is to allow surveillance on the communications of foreign targets who were suspected terrorists, it should be noted that the law has been used to spy on the communications of innocent Americans—despite the practice being ruled illegal—and any reauthorization of the law will only allow the practice to continue under the guise of “preventing terrorism.”
When the USA Patriot Act was passed in 2001, and the USA Freedom Act was passed in 2015, the U.S. government used fear-based propaganda disguised in the form of All-American titled legislation, which was spread without contest by the mainstream media. Section 702 is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2017, which means that Americans will likely see the same game come into play as the government prepares to pass the USA Liberty Act—a bill that is the opposite of its namesake.
Weinstein gave over $35,000 to Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, and leading up to 2014, gave between $100,000 to $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Foundation has also been pressured to rid itself of Weinstein’s money, but they have said that the money was already spent on projects, the Daily Mailreports. The organization claims the Weinstein money was spent on supporting women and girls around the world, as well as on lowering the cost of HIV medication.
Some Democrats believe all donations from Weinstein should be re-donated. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) has said he believes anyone who received political contributions from Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein should re-donate the money to organizations that fight sexual assault.
On Saturday, Chelsea Clinton avoided a reporter who asked about Weinstein’s donations as she went into a Clinton Global Initiative event in Boston.
Weinstein has been accused of sexually harassing and raping women in Hollywood over the course many years, and while his behavior was described as an “open secret,” it continued unabated for decades.
Late Thursday night, President Trump effectively ended Obamacare with the stroke of a pen, precisely following the recommendation Inforwars.com first exclusively published on April 28, 2017.
In a press release issued from the White House on Thursday, President Trump announced that based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare.
“In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments,” the White House press release stated.
The press release went on to explain that the House of Representatives sued the previous administration in Federal court for making these payments without such an appropriation, and the court agreed that the payments were not lawful.
“The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system,” the press release concluded.
Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.
In a separate press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Acting Secretary Eric Hargan and the Centers for Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma released the following statement announcing that cost-sharing reductions payments will be discontinued immediately based on a legal opinion from the Attorney General:
“It has been clear for many years that Obamacare is bad policy. It is also bad law. The Obama Administration unfortunately went ahead and made CSR payments to insurance companies after requesting – but never ultimately receiving – an appropriation from Congress as required by law.
“In 2014, the House of Representatives was forced to sue the previous Administration to stop this unconstitutional executive action. In 2016, a federal court ruled that the Administration had circumvented the appropriations process, and was unlawfully using unappropriated money to fund reimbursements due to insurers.
“After a thorough legal review by HHS, Treasury, OMB, and an opinion from the Attorney General, we believe that the last Administration overstepped the legal boundaries drawn by our Constitution. Congress has not appropriated money for CSRs, and we will discontinue these payments immediately.”
The article Infowars.com published on April 28, 2017, had advised that President Trump could put an end to Obamacare on his own, without requiring Congress to take any action at all.
The article next asked how that was possible?
What follows is the answer to that question that Infowars.com published in April.
All President Trump must do to “repeal” Obamacare is sign an Executive Order instructing the Solicitor General to withdraw the Obama administration’s appeal in the federal district court case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2016).
The result will be to immediately defund the low-income insurance company subsidies being paid by the federal government under Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), causing Obamacare to collapse, almost immediately.
The point is Congress never funded any taxpayer funds to pay the low-income insurance subsidies that are at the heart of making the ACA work.
What is at issue is Section 1402 of the ACA – a section written to provide federal subsidies to insurance companies for insurance purchased on state insurance exchanges to cover the difference between the capped maximum a low-income purchaser could be expected to pay and the amount the insurance cost.
Without funds provided by Congress to pay the low-income insurance subsidies under 1402, Obamacare collapses almost immediately.
No insurance company can long afford to provide low-income health insurance at a discount, unless the federal government pays the difference between what the insurance truly costs and the limited amount low-income purchasers can pay.
The problem is that Congress refused to pass an appropriation to fund Section 1402, leaving the Obama administration scrambling to find funds somewhere else in the federal budget that could be diverted to pay the low-income insurance subsidies.
Infowars.com has proved through an analysis of the Treasury Department balance sheets that the Obama administration found a solution in August 2012, when the Treasury Department decided that earnings confiscated from the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the “Net Worth Sweep” (NWS), could be diverted to pay the ACA low-income insurance subsidies.
The record contained in the Treasury Department balance sheets shows through 2013 a direct diversion of the NWS into line items used to fund Obamacare.
After 2013, the Obama administration continued the NWS (ultimately confiscating some $260 billion from Fannie and Freddie), but the one-for-one diversion of the Fannie and Freddie funds going into line items used to fund Obamacare is less clear, suggesting Treasury grew more clever after 2013 in hiding the diversion within the Treasury general account used as a slush fund.
The House of Representatives filed a federal district court case against then Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell to stop the Obamacare from diverting federal funds to pay the ACA low-income subsidies.
Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.
“Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” Judge Collyer concluded.
“Congress authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or since,” she stressed.
The Obama administration appealed the District Court decision in U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, deciding on its own authority that federal funds could continue to be diverted from other budgetary purposes to continue paying the insurance subsidies as long as the case was under appeal.
The point is that if the Trump administration simply decided to drop the Circuit Court appeal in Burwell, the District Court decision would become established law.
The result would be the Trump administration would be forbidden from diverting federal funds to pay the ACA insurance subsidies, with the result Obama care would implode.
“The Obama administration appealed the decision, but if the Trump administration were to drop that appeal, the subsidies would disappear,” commented Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News, in an article published on April 9, 2017.
If insurance companies were forced to take a loss by absorbing the cost above what low-income insured could afford to pay for the insurance coverage required under Obamacare, no insurance company could afford to provide health insurance to low-income insureds under the ACA.
Once President Trump withdraws the Obama administration appeal in U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, Obamacare becomes history.
To revive Obamacare, Congress would have to pass a resolution funding ACA Section 1402, something even RINOs like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell might find politically suicidal to do.
In a video announcement released on September 18th, Project Veritas founder and guerrilla journalist James O’Keefe warned his organization was currently operating one of the biggest ever investigations into the mainstream media’s ‘holy grail,’ promising media people will likely lose their jobs over the imminent exposé.
As previously reported, James O’Keefe released part one of his ‘American Pravda’ series with CNN on June 27th and subsequently released 2 more videos exposing CNN for reporting on the Russian collusion “Nothing Burger”.
O’Keefe says his goal is to expose the real motivation behind the decision making process in our dominant media corporation. The Russia story has dominated CNN. Since the inauguration, CNN has mentioned Russia on air nearly 16,000 times.
Early Tuesday morning, O’Keefe teased that he recorded the New York Times in a tweet to President Trump.
Project Veritas released part one Tuesday morning. It’s a video of the New York Times video gatekeeper Nicholas Dudich, who was caught on hidden-camera boasting of his lack of journalistic ethics. Dudich, who serves as Audience Strategy Editor, displays a lack of integrity throughout the video, manages videos which go “on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram” for the Times.
Project Veritas has released its second New York Times video, again featuring Audience Strategy Editor Nicholas Dudich. This time, the video gatekeeper describes how he can influence the news by manipulating social media and employing the help of his friends in Silicon Valley.
“As an editor, I’m a gatekeeper so I can choose what goes out and what doesn’t go out. And let’s say we wrote something about Facebook negatively… We actually just did a video about Facebook negatively, and I chose to put it in a spot that I knew wouldn’t do well.”
Dudich admits he has friends in Silicon Valley who help his videos trend. He buried the Facebook story because of his personal biases, and to protect his friends in Silicon Valley, which is in conflict with the New York Times mission.
When asked if it’s good for business to have Silicon Valley connections, Dudich replied, “Yeah. Very good. Very, very good.”
Dudich goes on to explain why he doesn’t want anyone at The Times to know about his connections:
“Let’s say something ends up on the YouTube front page, New York Times freaks out about it, but they don’t know it’s just because my friends curate the front page. So, it’s like, a little bit of mystery you need in any type of job to make it look like what you do is harder than what it is.”
O’Keefe released a bonus clip on Thursday of YouTube employee, Earnest Pettie claiming he makes sure Black Lives Matter videos get discovered on YouTube.
Watch Earnest Pettie talk about making sure people associated with Black Lives Matter are on YouTube. He then uses the algorithms to promote the group.