We know that not “all has been disclosed but for national security threats immaterial to the case.” That is the deep-state fink argument of those willfully wearing blinders. It’s bogus.
As for not everyone being “in on Fox,” that’s obvious. Otherwise Tom Cotton wouldn’t have torpedoed her candidacy.
Wonderful article again, thank you Chad. The irony of young Schlossberg sneering at ŔFK Jr's opinion on the assassinations at a 'Profiles in Courage' event, it is so off.
What would be even more ironic is if your calls for bipartisanship came to fruition and the truth is in there. I believe it really would set us free.
Our side? Define “we”.
Those of us actively seeking disclosure in the matter of the JFK assassination.
Then we might argue all has been disclosed but for national security threats immaterial to the case. We are not all in on Fox.
We already know that’s not the case. If you’d like to know more, read this:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jfkfacts/p/jfk-most-wanted-15-jfk-files-for?r=1bxs87&utm_medium=ios
You know we’re not all in on Fox? I don’t need a primer on the records. I’ve been paying attention for decades.
We know that not “all has been disclosed but for national security threats immaterial to the case.” That is the deep-state fink argument of those willfully wearing blinders. It’s bogus.
As for not everyone being “in on Fox,” that’s obvious. Otherwise Tom Cotton wouldn’t have torpedoed her candidacy.
It is a bogus argument but currently holds standing.
Not all of us seeking disclosure are all in on Fox.
Wonderful article again, thank you Chad. The irony of young Schlossberg sneering at ŔFK Jr's opinion on the assassinations at a 'Profiles in Courage' event, it is so off.
What would be even more ironic is if your calls for bipartisanship came to fruition and the truth is in there. I believe it really would set us free.
Interesting.