Monday, April 3, 2023

1967 - Jim Garrison was privately telling people in New Orleans that Lyndon Johnson was involved in the JFK assassination

 

Early 1967: Jim Garrison was privately telling people around New Orleans that that the JFK assassination could be “traced back” to Lyndon Johnson or that LBJ could be “found in it someplace.” Source Hale Boggs as told by Attorney General Ramsey Clark to LBJ on Feb. 20, 1967

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/06/the-assassination-tapes/302964/

 

Actually you can hear the Feb. 20, 1967 LBJ-Ramsey Clark conversation


https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/secret-white-house-tapes/conversation-ramsey-clark-february-20-1967  (Check and see if this audio web link is working. It was not working in early 2023 but I have been told that the glitch has been fixed.) 


You can also hear the Feb. 20, 1967 LBJ-Ramsey Clark conversation on this website:

http://impiousdigest.com/dumbfucks/ Scroll down the page to the 1967 LBJ-Ramsey Clark conversation – Jim Garrison was saying LBJ was involved, not Hale Boggs who had told Jim Garrison that the Warren Report was garbage. Author Joan Mellen had found out by talking to Jim Garrison’s wife Phyllis that it was Rep. Hale Boggs and not Sen. Russell Long who cued Jim Garrison into knowing there was a dead rat in the JFK assassination official story.

 

Interestingly, this critical conversation between LBJ and Ramsey Clark is not on the internet at the Miller Center: https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/secret-white-house-tapes/conversation-ramsey-clark-february-20-1967

 

The topics of the conversation were “Jim Garrison Investigation of JFK Assassination, Drew Pearson, Fidel Castro and Jimmy Hoffa”

 

[“The Assassination Tapes,” Max Holland, The Atlantic, June, 2004.

 

QUOTE

 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1967, 9:40 A.M.

Call to Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark

 

    CLARK: I think that what he [Jim Garrison] is workin' on must be the associations that Oswald had in the three or four months that he was down there [in New Orleans] in '62 [and] '63. I doubt ... I think it'd just be incredible if he [Garrison] had anything that went beyond that. I think this subject is so volatile and emotional, though, that it could get confused and obscured.

 

[Uncomfortably and hesitantly] I had heard that Hale Boggs was sayin' [that] he—Garrison—was sayin' that ... or privately around town [was saying] that it [the assassination] could be traced back [to you] ... or that you could be found in it someplace, which ... I can't believe he's been sayin' that. The Bureau says they haven't heard any such thing, and they got lots of eyes and ears.

 

'Course, that was a [credible] fella like Hale Boggs. But Hale gets pretty emotional about people [like Garrison] that he really doesn't like, and people who have fought him and been against him, and I would be more inclined to attribute it to that. Either that, or this guy Garrison [is] just completely off his rocker.

 

JOHNSON: Who did Hale tell this to?

 

CLARK [somewhat in disbelief]: Apparently Marvin [Watson].1

 

JOHNSON [aside to Watson, who was in the room]: [Did] Hale tell you that—Hale Boggs—that this fella [Garrison, this] district attorney down there, said that this is traced to me or somethin'?

 

WATSON: Privately he [Garrison] was using your name as having known about it [the assassination]. I said [to Boggs], Will you give this information to Barefoot Sanders?2 Ramsey was out of town—this was Saturday night. [Boggs] said, I sure will. So I asked the operator to get Barefoot and Ramsey together, and they did.

 

JOHNSON [to Clark]: Yeah, I don't know about it. They don't ever let me in on it, Marvin and Jake [Jacobsen] over here, so you have to call me direct.3

 

CLARK: Well—

 

JOHNSON: They just think this stuff's for them.

 

CLARK: Such nutty things that ... it's awfully explosive but ... The press, really, has quite a jaundiced eye about it ... and about Garrison, so far.4 I had several press interviews out in Des Moines [on] Saturday evening and afternoon, and the thrust of their questions is, What kind of nut is this?

 

UNQUOTE

 

No comments:

Post a Comment