Even the FBI had claimed that Harold Weisberg was the greatest authority on the JFK Assassination there is. The first and the very best, he outlined the cover up a year or so after the assassination and destroyed the credibility of the Warren Commission report right after it was released because it was purely fictitious.

Weisberg wrote over a dozen books on the subject yet he is still overlooked and ignored. He published Whitewash is 1965 and it is still more relevant than anything that has been written since, short of Preserving Their Legacy by historian Mat Wilson.

All legitimate researchers studied Weisberg first, then they wrote their books. The rest, and they're still at it, sought to discredit him. because the cover-up persisted.

Mr. Weisberg taught those of us who listened, very well. His every action was countered by deliberate deception and professional “debunkers” like wall street darling, Gerald Posner, tried to revive the fraudulent conclusions that the Warren Report promoted before Posner exposed the deception.

Mr. Weisberg forever informs us as follows:

“Executive agencies have very much to lose by an honest investigation...how they've coped with them in the past. And they have coped with them in the past...those of you who followed the Church Committee closely know that it made alot of headlines, but we got the same people doing the same kind of business in the same way. No basic changes. The bureacracies persist, it's the nature of all bureacracies, and the bureaucracies of the intelligence agencies persist more successfully because they've got the stuff on everybody else. The Schweiker report which I mentioned briefly last night is a classic example of the success of government disinformation operations. It's not new. Those of us who follow these things closely, for example I'll mention the Watergate Committee. We frequently learn a fair amount of what these committees do not want to bring to light. There was no real Watergate investigation, there was just enough to get rid of Richard Nixon. If you stop and think -one of my problems and I hope you can understand it, is that there is an enormous amount of information, and I just don't know if I'm cutting off too soon, if I'm informing you enough. So please interrup me if I'm not clear...I'll try to give you one simple illustration with the Watergate committee, which everybody just loved. Once the word about Nixon's tapes was out, there was not a single bit of investigation. You think back to all the newspaper headlines, over what you saw on TV especially if you took in the hearings when they were live, -nothing, nobody investigated anything. There is much that could have been learned by investigattion. I mean an enormous amount that could have not possibly been on those tapes.

All governments, as I think you have come to know, work under pressures, they're political pressures, great pressures... those who remained in government and the new president once John Kennedy was killed, these pressures never wear off. There are all kinds of sources for all kinds of reasons, and they're not all bad reasons. It depends on the question of concern, on the subject matter, on what form the pressures can take...and things of that sort. I don't know why Dick Schweiker wanted to have a subcommitte of the Church committee on political assassinations. There there were other members of the committee who knew me, who wanted me to speak to them long before there was a Schweiker committee. And from his total indifference to the work of the subcommittee, I have no idea why Senator Gary Hart, who you may remember was Governor McGovern's campaign manager, wanted to be on the subcommittee -his attitude was negative about everything. And he apparently did absolutely no work at all. So I can't explain that to you. I can tell you that in the meeting I had with Dick Schweiker, when he asked mem to come in, andit's a day I'll never forget because I was on the way to the hospital and I didn't know it, I was much impressed by the man but I developed a theory that he had heard the siren song and found it melodious. And I tried to caution him against theorizing and I tried to persuade him that the last thing the country needs is new trauma, that we have a sufficient agony, that theorizing would mean more agony, and he thanked me profusely and I really left impressed with the idea that he might go and take a responsible route, and while I was in the hospital, I heard news accounts of his appearance in his native state of Pennsylvania, and my faith didn't last long.”

On October 16, 1975, the New York Times confirmed Mr. Weisberg's shattered faith in the following terms;

Senator Schweiker, Republican of Pennsylvania, said at a news conference here that the subcommittee had developed “very significant leads” about the murder and wants to investigate the following possibilities.

*That President Kennedy was killed by means of a Communist plot originating in Cuba or the Soviet Union.

* That the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination was a result of a right-wing conspiracy in the United States.

*That anti-Castro Cubans, angry over diminishing support from the Kennedy Administration, planned the murder.

Senator Schweiker said he did not lean toward any particular conspiracy theory. “The only thing I'm certain about is that we don't know the truth about the Kennedy assassination,” he said.

Thanks to the media and to everything that Mr. Weisberg taught us, we already know that the Mueller report is subject to the following roadblocks.

Next: Can election 2020 restore democracy?





Team 2020
President Elizabeth Warren










Counter 100% gratis