Oswald, Garrison suspects and Rose Cherami

Dave Reitzes

unread,

Mar 26, 2017, 9:34:10 PM3/26/17

to

I have updated Part 2 of my web article, "Impeaching Clinton," to reflect
an endorsement I've received from an internationally prominent
journalist/author regarding my discussion of the Rose Cherami issue.

The first part of the article deals with the witnesses who claimed to have
seen Oswald in the company of Clay Shaw and David Ferrie in Clinton,
Louisiana; the second part discusses witnesses who reported Oswald
appearing in nearby Jackson. Rose Cherami has some relevance to the latter
subject, as I explain in the article. Please check it out.

http://www.jfk-online.com/impeach.html

Dave

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 27, 2017, 7:30:53 PM3/27/17

to

On 3/26/2017 9:34 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> I have updated Part 2 of my web article, "Impeaching Clinton," to reflect
> an endorsement I've received from an internationally prominent
> journalist/author regarding my discussion of the Rose Cherami issue.
>

They already tried to impeach Bill Clinton and failed.

> The first part of the article deals with the witnesses who claimed to have
> seen Oswald in the company of Clay Shaw and David Ferrie in Clinton,
> Louisiana; the second part discusses witnesses who reported Oswald
> appearing in nearby Jackson. Rose Cherami has some relevance to the latter
> subject, as I explain in the article. Please check it out.
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/impeach.html
>
> Dave
>

Something like that. There was never anything to the story.

BOZ

unread,

Mar 28, 2017, 2:21:16 PM3/28/17

to

They did not try to impeach. Clinton was impeached. Impeach means to
accuse of a crime it does not mean to remove from office.

bpete1969

unread,

Mar 28, 2017, 7:34:59 PM3/28/17

to

Anthony has trouble with anything beyond "one" letter.

W. Tracy Parnell

unread,

Mar 28, 2017, 7:35:27 PM3/28/17

to

Congrats Dave on the recognition from Summers. Good to see that he has
accepted that Rose is a bogus. Great article as well.

OHLeeRedux

unread,

Mar 29, 2017, 4:33:14 PM3/29/17

to

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 4:30:53 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/26/2017 9:34 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > I have updated Part 2 of my web article, "Impeaching Clinton," to reflect
> > an endorsement I've received from an internationally prominent
> > journalist/author regarding my discussion of the Rose Cherami issue.
> >
>
> They already tried to impeach Bill Clinton and failed.
>

You watch too much TV and don't read enough. That is one reason that you
don't know that Clinton WAS impeached. The other reason is obvious from
your perpetual confusion.

Dave Reitzes

unread,

Mar 29, 2017, 4:39:59 PM3/29/17

to

Thanks, Tracy. While he and I disagree on much, he's unusually receptive
to new evidence, and to giving "the other side" a fair hearing.

Dave

John McAdams

unread,

Mar 29, 2017, 4:49:59 PM3/29/17

to

Summers is indeed honest and open-minded.

There is a fairly long list of conspiracy factoids he has backed off
of when he learned of evidence that debunked them. That's actually
rare among conspiracy authors.

I once got a huffy e-mail from him when he discovered my web page
saying he "unfortunately is too easily bamboozled by suspect witnesses
with 'interesting' stories to tell."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/books.htm

We exchanged some nicer e-mails when I recommended his book in the
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

http://archive.jsonline.com/entertainment/books/kennedy-assassination-still-source-of-inspiration-for-book-writers-b99125156z1-229294751.html

He has been bamboozled by witnesses like Delphine Roberts, and he is
responsible for that nonsensical "J. Edgar Hoover in a dress" stuff.

But he's honest and open-minded, and that counts for a lot.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Dave Reitzes

unread,

Mar 30, 2017, 1:18:08 PM3/30/17

to

It's not unusual for interviewers to be misled by their subjects. Summers
was misled by Delphine Roberts and her daughter, Gary Mack was misled by
Gordon Arnold, ditto Dick Russell and Nagell, etc. Perhaps some of these
people are more persuasive in person, or maybe it's the thrill of getting
an exclusive interview that makes investigators want to believe. (An
exclusive interview isn't worth much, after all, if the subject has
nothing particularly interesting or useful to contribute.)

Dave

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 30, 2017, 1:26:38 PM3/30/17

to

They tried, but they didn't have enough votes.

OHLeeRedux

unread,

Mar 31, 2017, 8:45:46 AM3/31/17

to

Yet again, I have made the mistake of thinking that I'd seen everything
from you. This level of ignorance is way beyond anything ever.

The only skill you have ever demonstrated here is your ability to use
search engines to find stuff on the Internet. Yet you are incapable of
looking up the word "impeach," or of finding news articles from December
1998, which would inform you of the simple fact that . . .

President Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED on December 19, 1998.

You have now claimed -- twice -- that it never happened.

You're going to have to spin like a dervish to rescue your reputation from
this one, if that is even possible.