Would Oswald have been convicted?

[John Mytton]

The WC was committed to the LN narrative from its creation.

Exactly right! The WC report was a political document and not the result of a honest and thorough investigation.

...and thorough investigation

This is why you lose, you will only accept a finding that mirrors your own flawed, inept, biased research. Pathetic!

The Warren Commission's findings were actually quite thorough which included the testimony or depositions of 552 witnesses and more than 3,100 exhibits, making a total of more than 16,000 pages. And the HSCA who were trying their damnedest to find a conspiracy, came to the same conclusion that Oswald fired three shots and killed Kennedy and wounded Connally.



BTW, after 62 years and the additional research of thousands of researcher who have collectively spent IMO millions of hours investigating this crime are still no closer to discovering who was behind the conspiracy and that's because there was no conspiracy, a lone nut who hated America, defected to the enemy and wanted to be known forever, took his rifle to work and assassinated Kennedy. Case Closed!

JohnM

[Tom Graves]

What's ironic is that you, like me, are anti-Trump, but you don't realize that "former" KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin installed him as our "president" on 20 January 2017

Does Russia meddle in elections in other countries? Sure they do, but so does the USA. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. If you want to be paranoid about it, then be paranoid. At my age, I couldn't care less. As far as I am concerned this world has been on a self destruct course for many years and things will get worse before they get better. In fact, you don't need the Russians to f*ck up the world or even the country. All you need to do is leave it to the corrupt politicians and their special interest groups.

ME: What do you say to people who claim that "Russia's meddling in our 2016 election was no worse than the U.S.'s meddling in other countries over the years"?

GROK: The claim is a textbook example of whataboutism (or tu quoque fallacy): it doesn't defend or minimize Russia's specific actions in 2016; it just points at someone else's past sins to deflect scrutiny. Here's a clear, evidence-based rebuttal that doesn't rely on partisan spin, denial of history, or pretending great powers play nice.

1. Both are wrong — but "both wrong" ≠ "equally bad or equivalent"

The United States has interfered in foreign elections and politics for decades (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, Italy's post-WWII elections, and dozens more documented cases). These were often overt or covert regime-change efforts tied to Cold War containment of Soviet expansion. They frequently involved money, arms, propaganda, and sometimes coups with real body counts and long-term blowback. Critics of U.S. foreign policy (left, right, and libertarian) have rightly hammered this for generations.

Russia's 2016 operation was different in kind, scale, and context:

It was cyber-enabled information warfare against the sovereign electoral process of a peer nuclear power and longstanding democracy — not a small client state or unstable developing nation.

U.S. intelligence consensus (FBI, CIA, NSA, and later Senate Intelligence Committee reports) documented Russian military intelligence (GRU) hacking the DNC and leaking emails via WikiLeaks, plus a coordinated social-media influence campaign by the Internet Research Agency (troll farm) that reached millions of Americans. The goal, per the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, was to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," boost a candidate seen as Russia-friendly, and deepen polarization.

Cost to Russia: pennies compared to a coup or invasion. Impact: no tanks, no deaths, but measurable erosion of trust in elections that persists today. This was hybrid warfare, not Cold War proxy games.

Equating a $10–30 million disinformation/hacking op (estimates vary) aimed at a stable democracy with decades of U.S.-backed coups that sometimes killed thousands is false equivalence. One is subversion of norms; the other was often kinetic nation-building (or destruction). Russia's 2016 effort was "worse" in the precise sense that it weaponized our own open system against itself without firing a shot — cheaper, deniable, and scalable in the internet age.

2. Context and timing matter — this isn't symmetric Cold War chess

U.S. meddling peaked during an existential ideological struggle against Soviet totalitarianism that killed tens of millions. Many interventions were framed (rightly or wrongly) as stopping communist takeovers in vulnerable spots. Russia in 2016 was a declining revanchist power under Putin, post-Cold War, using asymmetric tools to weaken the post-1991 liberal order that had contained it. Putin has openly called the USSR's collapse "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." This wasn't defensive containment; it was offensive disruption.

Russia doesn't get a pass because "the U.S. did it in 1953." That's like saying China's South China Sea militarization is fine because the U.S. had the Monroe Doctrine. Great-power hypocrisy exists on all sides. It doesn't magically make the current interference benign.

3. Russia denies, doubles down, and repeats — the U.S. at least sometimes self-corrects

Russia still officially denies any 2016 election interference (despite mountains of forensic evidence on the hacks). It treats "active measures" as standard doctrine.

The U.S. has congressional oversight, declassified histories, and public reckonings (Church Committee in the 1970s curbed some CIA excesses). Imperfect, but real accountability mechanisms exist in a democracy. Authoritarian Russia has none.

Russia has kept doing it: documented interference in European elections (France 2017, Germany, Brexit influence ops), U.S. midterms, and ongoing influence campaigns. This is state policy, not a one-off historical sin.

4. The "no worse" claim is a shield, not an argument

It dodges the actual question: Was Russia's interference real, deliberate, and damaging to American sovereignty? Yes. Does past U.S. behavior justify or neutralize it? No — that's moral relativism. If you apply the same logic consistently, then every nation's bad acts become excusable forever ("China's Uyghur camps? Well, U.S. slavery!"). Truth-seeking requires judging each case on its merits, not score-settling.

If the goal is consistency, condemn all foreign election meddling — U.S., Russian, Chinese, Iranian, whatever. But using America's historical baggage to wave away Russia's 2016 operation (and its sequel in 2020 and beyond) is just special pleading for one side. It weakens deterrence against future attacks on democratic processes worldwide.

In short: Russia's meddling doesn't become "not worse" because America has dirty hands. It was a targeted, low-cost attack on the heart of U.S. self-governance. Calling it out isn't hypocrisy — it's rejecting the idea that might (or past precedent) makes right.


ME: Please give me a breakdown, on a case-by-case basis, as to why the U.S. intervened in twenty elections or countries' "politics."

GROK: Here is a factual, case-by-case breakdown of 20 well-documented U.S. interventions in foreign elections or internal politics. These draw primarily from declassified U.S. government documents (e.g., State Department Office of the Historian, Church Committee reports), scholarly databases like Dov Levin’s (which identified 81 U.S. partisan electoral interventions from 1946–2000), and historical records.

I focused on a representative sample across decades, mostly Cold War-era (when most occurred) but including a few post-Cold War cases. The primary U.S. rationale in nearly all Cold War cases was containment of communism under the Truman Doctrine and domino theory—preventing Soviet influence, leftist governments, or “another Cuba.” Economic interests (e.g., protecting U.S. companies) and regional stability sometimes played supporting roles. Interventions ranged from covert funding and propaganda to overt pressure; outcomes varied and are noted only for context.

Italy, 1948 election
The CIA funneled millions of dollars to the Christian Democrats via the Catholic Church and other channels, ran anti-communist propaganda, and coordinated with Italian-American groups.
Why: Prevent a communist/socialist victory in the first post-WWII election; fear of Soviet-backed takeover in Western Europe.

Philippines, 1953 election
CIA operative Edward Lansdale essentially ran the campaign of Ramon Magsaysay (Defense Minister), providing funding, strategy, and anti-communist messaging.
Why: Defeat the Hukbalahap communist insurgency and install a pro-U.S. leader to stabilize a key Pacific ally.

Iran, 1952 election and 1953 coup
CIA spent funds to elect anti-Mossadegh candidates in parliament; this preceded the full coup (Operation Ajax) that ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
Why: Counter Mossadegh’s oil nationalization (seen as opening doors to Soviet influence) and protect Western oil access.

Indonesia, 1955 election
CIA provided over $1 million to centrist and Muslim parties to reduce support for Sukarno and the Communist Party.
Why: Prevent communist gains and Soviet alignment in Southeast Asia.

Lebanon, 1957 election
U.S. provided $10 million in economic aid and $2 million in military aid tied to pro-government projects, plus covert support for Christian parties.
Why: Counter communist and Nasser/Syrian-Egyptian influence in the Middle East.

Greece, 1958 and 1961 elections
CIA spent large sums on strategies to back the National Radical Union (and Centre Union in 1961) against socialist/communist parties.
Why: Block leftist electoral victories and maintain NATO stability.

Bolivia, 1964–1966 elections/politics
CIA financed media, unions, student groups, and parties (including MNR) with over $1 million to break communist and Cuban influence; later funded rivals to legitimize elections.
Why: Create a stable pro-U.S. government amid perceived communist threats.

Brazil, 1962 election influence (pre-1964 coup)
CIA and AFL-CIO channeled funds to anti-Goulart forces; U.S. Information Service ran anti-communist campaigns.
Why: Prevent João Goulart (viewed as a communist demagogue) from consolidating power and creating “a second Cuba.”

Chile, 1964 election
CIA spent ~$2.6–4 million funding Eduardo Frei Montalva and anti-Allende propaganda.
Why: Thwart Soviet influence and a Marxist victory.

Chile, 1970 election and 1970–1973 destabilization
CIA ran propaganda, funded opponents, and supported efforts (including the Schneider kidnapping) to block Salvador Allende’s confirmation; later backed opposition leading to the coup.
Why: Prevent a democratically elected Marxist government aligned with the USSR/Cuba.

Japan, 1955–1969 elections
CIA provided annual covert funding ($2–10 million) and advice to the Liberal Democratic Party.
Why: Ensure a pro-U.S., anti-communist government as a bulwark in Asia.

Dominican Republic, 1966 election
U.S. provided financial aid, media support, and advice to Joaquín Balaguer.
Why: Install a stable, pro-U.S. government after earlier instability.

El Salvador, 1984 election
Diplomatic pressure, media support, and covert funding for José Napoleón Duarte against leftist guerrillas.
Why: Prevent a communist/FMLN victory during Central American civil wars.

Nicaragua, 1984 and 1990 elections
Funding and support for anti-Sandinista opposition (including boycotts and later heavy aid to Violeta Chamorro’s coalition).
Why: Undermine the Soviet/Cuban-aligned Sandinista government.

Panama, 1984 election
CIA and other channels funded Nicolás Ardito Barletta’s campaign.
Why: Support a candidate aligned with U.S. interests amid regional tensions.

Albania, 1991–1992 elections
Financial aid, training, media support, and public embassy backing for the Democratic Party; threats to withhold aid if socialists won.
Why: Accelerate anti-socialist transition after communism’s fall.

Serbia (Yugoslavia), 2000 election
$41 million in overt/covert support (training, materials, monitors) to opposition against Slobodan Milošević.
Why: Remove a leader seen as destabilizing the Balkans and violating human rights.

Mongolia, 1996 election
National Endowment for Democracy funded opposition parties, provided campaign training, and distributed materials to oust the former communist party.
Why: Promote pro-democracy, pro-market forces and foreign investment post-Soviet era.

Malta, 1971 election
Covert aid to the Nationalist Party against the Labour Party.
Why: Maintain a pro-Western government.

Costa Rica, 1966 election
AFL-CIO contacts and support for the National Liberation Party.
Why: Ensure an anti-communist victory in a strategically located democracy.

These cases illustrate a pattern rooted in the geopolitical realities of the Cold War and immediate post-Cold War period. U.S. policymakers viewed many leftist movements as Soviet proxies. Not every intervention succeeded, and some (e.g., Chile, Iran) produced long-term blowback. Post-2000 examples exist but are fewer and often more overt/democracy-promotion framed. For full primary sources, see the Church Committee (1975), State Department histories, or Levin’s dataset.


ME: In how many of them was it primarily to halt or slow down the spread of Communism?

GROK: Primarily to halt or slow the spread of Communism: 16–17 out of the 20 cases.

This assessment is based on declassified U.S. documents, scholarly analyses (e.g., Dov Levin’s dataset on partisan electoral interventions), and historical consensus for the Cold War era. U.S. policymakers routinely framed interventions through the lens of containment (Truman Doctrine, domino theory): preventing Soviet-aligned leftist/communist parties or governments from gaining or consolidating power. Economic interests, regional stability, and anti-nationalism often overlapped but were usually secondary or justified via the communist threat.

Clear Yes (Primary Motivation: Anti-Communism/Containment) — 16 cases

Italy 1948: Explicitly to block a strong Communist Party victory and Soviet influence in Western Europe.

Philippines 1953: Against the Huk communist insurgency; install a pro-U.S. leader.

Indonesia 1955: Counter Communist Party (PKI) gains and Soviet alignment.

Lebanon 1957: Counter communist and Nasserist (Soviet-leaning) influence.

Greece 1958/1961: Block socialist/communist parties; maintain NATO stability.

Bolivia 1964–1966: Break communist and Cuban influence.

Brazil 1962: Against Goulart, viewed as enabling communist elements ("another Cuba").

Chile 1964: Anti-Allende Marxist/Soviet-aligned forces.

Chile 1970–1973: Prevent and destabilize Allende’s Marxist government.

Japan 1955–1969: Fund LDP to ensure anti-communist bulwark.

El Salvador 1984: Against FMLN communist guerrillas.

Nicaragua 1984/1990: Undermine Soviet/Cuban-aligned Sandinistas.

Costa Rica 1966: Ensure anti-communist victory.

Albania 1991–1992: Accelerate post-communist transition; support anti-socialists.

Mongolia 1996: Oust lingering communist structures; promote markets/democracy.

Malta 1971: Against Labour Party (seen as socialist/left-leaning).

Dominican Republic 1966 is a borderline yes: post-civil war stability after leftist instability, with anti-communist undertones common in the era.Mixed or Not Primarily Communism — 3–4 cases

Iran 1953: Oil nationalization by Mossadegh (a nationalist, not communist) was central. The Tudeh Party threat was cited but widely viewed as exaggerated or a rhetorical smokescreen; recent scholarship emphasizes economic/oil motives over imminent communist takeover. +1

Panama 1984: Support for a candidate aligned with U.S. interests (canal, stability); more narco/political than ideological communism by this point.
Serbia 2000: Remove Milošević over Balkans instability, ethnic cleansing, and human rights—not communism (post-Cold War).

Key Context

Cold War pattern: The vast majority of U.S. interventions (per Levin’s 81 cases 1946–2000) occurred under containment logic. Even where local communists weren’t in imminent control, policymakers often invoked Soviet proxy fears.

Exceptions grew post-1990: Democracy promotion, stability, or other goals became more prominent as the Soviet threat receded.
Nuance: "Primarily" means the dominant documented rationale in internal deliberations and public justifications. Overlap with other motives (e.g., protecting U.S. firms in Chile/Latin America) was common, but communism/containment was the overarching strategic frame.

This isn’t a defense of the interventions—many had significant blowback and moral costs—but a factual categorization based on the historical record. U.S. actions were far more frequent than Soviet/Russian ones during this period, reflecting superpower competition.

Trump isn't only a complete idiot; he's also the biggest threat for world peace, but no matter who you want to blame at the end of the day millions of American idiots voted him into power, so if you want to blame somebody, blame them.

Fifty-eight years (it started in 1959; see above) of KGB disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies dumbed-down and/or made paranoic/apathetic our body politic to such a degree that Putin was able to install Trump as our useful idiot "president" on 20 January 2017.

[John Corbett]

Oswald would have easily been convicted of both murders and almost certainly would have been sentenced to death. I have serious doubts that the sentence would have ever been carried out. The infamous Clutter family murders in 1959 were also committed in November. It took 5 1/2 years for them to exhaust the appeals process before Perry Smith and Dick Hickock were hanged for the crimes. A similar length appeals process would have delayed Oswald's execution until 1969. By that year, there was a de facto moratorium on executions as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the death penalty. In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 margin that while the death penalty was constitutional, it created very specific guidelines for how it could be applied. They ruled that all current death penalty statutes failed to meet those guidelines and vacated all existing death sentences. In so doing, SCOTUS spared the lives of Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson as well as hundreds of other condemned convicts. Had Oswald been on death row at the time, he too would have been spared and the little bastard might still be doing time in the Texas Penitentiary. For that reason, I remain grateful to Jack Ruby. He did us all a huge favor by exterminating Oswald. I just hope Oswald suffered a great deal before he took his last breath.

[John Mytton]

Oswald would have easily been convicted of both murders and almost certainly would have been sentenced to death. I have serious doubts that the sentence would have ever been carried out. The infamous Clutter family murders in 1959 were also committed in November. It took 5 1/2 years for them to exhaust the appeals process before Perry Smith and Dick Hickock were hanged for the crimes. A similar length appeals process would have delayed Oswald's execution until 1969. By that year, there was a de facto moratorium on executions as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the death penalty. In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 margin that while the death penalty was constitutional, it created very specific guidelines for how it could be applied and they ruled that all current death penalty statutes failed to meet those guidelines and vacated all existing death sentences. In so doing, SCOTUS spared the lives of Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson as well as hundreds of other condemned convicts. Had Oswald been on death row at the time, he too would have been spared and the little bastard might still be doing time in the Texas Penitentiary. For that reason, I remain grateful to Jack Ruby. He did us all a huge favor by exterminating Oswald. I just hope Oswald suffered a great deal before he took his last breath.

That's interesting.

Oswald was ready to die.
He wrote in his "Historic Diary" about his suicide attempt and after he kills General Walker, Oswald writes in his Walker Note "If I'm still alive" obviously fully expecting to be killed by the Police.

And when arrested in the Texas Theater he pulls out his revolver and tries to kill McDonald, an act which if he succeeded would mean instant death. "Suicide by cop"

Also when he was arrested and riding back to DPHQ after he's told "I hear they burn for murder." Oswald replies with "Well, they say it just takes a second to die".

Oswald was unhinged with a death wish!

JohnM

[John Corbett]

That's interesting.

Oswald was ready to die.
He wrote in his "Historic Diary" about his suicide attempt and after he kills General Walker, Oswald writes in his Walker Note "If I'm still alive" obviously fully expecting to be killed by the Police.

And when arrested in the Texas Theater he pulls out his revolver and tries to kill McDonald, an act which if he succeeded would mean instant death. "Suicide by cop"

Also when he was arrested and riding back to DPHQ after he's told "I hear they burn for murder." Oswald replies with "Well, they say it just takes a second to die".

Oswald was unhinged with a death wish!

JohnM

It all would have hinged on whether Oswald chose to use the full appeals process available to him. Only one person who committed a murder after the JFKA and before the Supreme Court vacated all existing death penalty statutes was executed and that was a man who chose to accept his sentence without appealing it.
I believe the last execution in the US  prior to SCOTUS vacating the death penalty was in California in 1967 but that was for a murder committed before the JFKA.

Interestingly, the first two convicts executed after states reinstituted the death penalty were also men who chose not to fight their sentence. The most famous was Gary Gilmore made famous by Norman Mailer's book The Executioner's Song, later made into a TV movie starring a very young Tommy Lee Jones. Gilmore died by firing squad in Utah. I'm going to go out on a limb and trust my memory rather than look it up but I believe the second was a guy named Jesse Bishop and I think he died in Californias's gas chamber. I will look it up after I post this to see how good my memory is.

UPDATE: I looked it up and I correctly named Jesse Bishop and his method of execution but he died in Nevada's gas chamber, not California's. He was also the third person executed not the second. John Spenkelenk was the second and he died in Florida's electric chair. I remember the name and where he was executed and how but I thought he died after Bishop. Spenkelenk did fight his execution but ran out his appeals. Now it takes about 25 years for the appeals process to be exhausted. I have no idea why it should take so long but attorneys have figured out how to game the system and put off executions for decades.