Rethinking LBJ

[Lance Payette]

LBJ is, of course, at the very pinnacle of likely conspiracy participants.

Cui bono? (“Who benefitted?”) is the standard criminal inquiry when looking for suspects.

Well, going from a vastly underused and ridiculed VP who was likely to be dropped from the 1964 ticket, was facing Congressional investigation and likely to be removed from office to POTUS in the blink of an eye has to be as “cui bono” as it gets.

HOWEVER, I recently finished all four of acclaimed historian Robert Caro’s massive and highly acclaimed books on LBJ, which are regarded as among the very best works of their kind. They are collectively thousands of pages – and the last one only takes us up to a few months after the JFKA as we await Caro’s final volume that he hopes to publish in his lifetime (he’s 90).

It was refreshing to read real history by a real historian instead of JFKA blather. Caro is aware of all the conspiratorial theorizing that swirls around LBJ but says he found nothing in his exhaustive research to suggest LBJ was actually involved. (For a counterpoint, and a glimpse of true conspiratorial insanity, search “Robert Morrow” at the Ed Forum and you’ll see what non-history by a foaming-at-the-mouth LBJ crank looks like.) Caro is no LBJ worshipper, so that charge can't be laid at his feet.

I lived through LBJ's Presidency but was astounded at who he really was. Yes, he was a roughhewn character who could be rude, crude, sneaky and manipulative, but he was a political genius of the first magnitude and had a preternatural talent for motivating those around him to work as unbelievably hard as he did. “Uncle Cornpone,” as he was derisively referred to by the Kennedy crowd, was actually far more politically sophisticated and savvy than all of them put together. Immediately after the JFKA, he pledged to push through JFK’s civil rights legislation that was then hopelessly bogged down. Civil rights leaders who met with him came away awed (and even crying), saying JFK and RFK were “children” in comparison to LBJ. Again and again, dating back to his days at a Podunk college in the Texas hill country, what he achieved and how he did it is difficult to believe. Simply a genius in more ways than one.

He had said repeatedly since early childhood, in circumstances where it seemed ridiculous at the time, that he would one day be President. He wasn’t kidding. He thought it was his destiny, and it was his obsession.

Just one example: He was also obsessed with becoming wealthy. Early in his Congressional career - he was in his 20s - a Texas multi-millionaire who enjoyed being a benefactor offered him a sweetheat deal on an oil operation that would have made him wealthy overnight. LBJ thought about it but decided he couldn't risk being associated with the oil industry. The benefactor was flabbergasted. No one in Texas would have cared about an association with the oil industry, even if LBJ decided to run for Governor or the Senate. He then realized that this impoverished twentysomething newbie Congressman wasn't thinking in those terms. He was thinking about the Presidency.

Everyone – and I mean everyone – urged him not to accept the Vice Presidency. He was “Master of the Senate” (the title of Caro’s third book), already fantastically more powerful than any VP could ever be. It made no sense to anyone but LBJ. He made no bones about why he was accepting the position. He expected to die early – all the Johnson men did – and this was likely his last shot at the Presidency.

He told people why he was accepting the position. On the night of JFK's inauguration, he told Clare Booth Luce. He had previously told other trusted friends and journalists. I may not have the quote exactly right, but it was very close to this: “I’m a gamblin’ man, darlin’, and this is the only chance I got. One in six Presidents dies in office. I’ve done the research.” And he actually had done the research.

As it turned out, of course, his gamble paid off. His Presidency turned into a Shakespearean tragedy as Vietnam escalated from something like 15,000 American advisers to more than 500,000 troops - but he had achieved the Presidency as he had always dreamed.

Suspicious? Sure. But on the other hand, who would have spoken this brazenly before JFK's inauguration and then actually have masterminded or even participated in the JFKA? Anyone involved, up to and including LBJ, would have been risking certain execution. LBJ was very aware of his place in history – he has a far larger place than I had realized – and there is no way in my opinion (or Caro’s, I surmise) that he would’ve risked throwing it (and the vast wealth he had achieved) all away. Just an aside, but there was far more to Ladybird than I had ever realized - and I don't believe LBJ would have done that to her, either.

He was a dutiful VP, remaining loyal through all the Uncle Cornpone stuff and the demeaning sideline role to which he was relegated. He utterly despised RFK (the feeling was mutual) but not so much JFK.

I have no doubt he regarded the JFKA as an unbelievable stroke of luck and wasn’t shedding any tears. However, the more I learn the less likely I think it is that he had any role in the JFKA or any preknowledge of it. Robet Morrow, as you will see if you care to do so, vehemently disagrees.

Here's wacky Robert, for whom a tinfoil hat simply isn't sufficient:



See https://www.wsj.com/articles/front-runner-for-texas-school-board-wants-to-teach-pole-dancing-conspiracy-theories-11583526093 ("AUSTIN, Texas—He wears a jester hat, frequently tweets photos of women’s breasts and advocates for teaching in schools that Lyndon Johnson assassinated John F. Kennedy.").

[Benjamin Cole]

LP--

Verily I read the Caro books too...I am even a grad of the LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin. Some of the Johnson Administration people made presentations while I was there, including Dean Rusk.

I doubt LBJ was involved the JFKA. I am less sure of what happened to a guy named Marshall.

The 1961 death of U.S. Department of Agriculture official Henry Marshall was initially ruled a suicide but later, in 1985, changed to homicide, following investigations linking it to Texas swindler Billie Sol Estes and claims that then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) ordered the killing to cover up fraud.

It sure looks like Marshall was murdered, and in the Texas of 1961, somehow that obvious fact was smoothed over.

Who knows?

I mean, aside from Robert Morrow.

[John Corbett]

LBJ is, of course, at the very pinnacle of likely conspiracy participants.

Only to people who prioritize speculation over evidence.

Cui bono? (“Who benefitted?”) is the standard criminal inquiry when looking for suspects.

Well, going from a vastly underused and ridiculed VP who was likely to be dropped from the 1964 ticket, was facing Congressional investigation and likely to be removed from office to POTUS in the blink of an eye has to be as “cui bono” as it gets.

That's not how criminal investigators identify suspects. They look at the available evidence and figure out who that evidence indicates committed the crime.  They don't start out with who had a motive. That's a bassackwards approach. The purpose of an investigation is to whittle down the number of suspects. Looking at who had a motive will increase the number of suspects. There were far many more people who had motive to kill JFK than there were people who took part in the crime. When one takes an evidence base approach, they end up with only one suspect.

HOWEVER, I recently finished all four of acclaimed historian Robert Caro’s massive and highly acclaimed books on LBJ, which are regarded as among the very best works of their kind. They are collectively thousands of pages – and the last one only takes us up to a few months after the JFKA as we await Caro’s final volume that he hopes to publish in his lifetime (he’s 90).

It was refreshing to read real history by a real historian instead of JFKA blather. Caro is aware of all the conspiratorial theorizing that swirls around LBJ but says he found nothing in his exhaustive research to suggest LBJ was actually involved. (For a counterpoint, and a glimpse of true conspiratorial insanity, search “Robert Morrow” at the Ed Forum and you’ll see what non-history by a foaming-at-the-mouth LBJ crank looks like.) Caro is no LBJ worshipper, so that charge can't be laid at his feet.

I lived through LBJ's Presidency but was astounded at who he really was. Yes, he was a roughhewn character who could be rude, crude, sneaky and manipulative, but he was a political genius of the first magnitude and had a preternatural talent for motivating those around him to work as unbelievably hard as he did. “Uncle Cornpone,” as he was derisively referred to by the Kennedy crowd, was actually far more politically sophisticated and savvy than all of them put together. Immediately after the JFKA, he pledged to push through JFK’s civil rights legislation that was then hopelessly bogged down. Civil rights leaders who met with him came away awed (and even crying), saying JFK and RFK were “children” in comparison to LBJ. Again and again, dating back to his days at a Podunk college in the Texas hill country, what he achieved and how he did it is difficult to believe. Simply a genius in more ways than one.

He had said repeatedly since early childhood, in circumstances where it seemed ridiculous at the time, that he would one day be President. He wasn’t kidding. He thought it was his destiny, and it was his obsession.

Just one example: He was also obsessed with becoming wealthy. Early in his Congressional career - he was in his 20s - a Texas multi-millionaire who enjoyed being a benefactor offered him a sweetheat deal on an oil operation that would have made him wealthy overnight. LBJ thought about it but decided he couldn't risk being associated with the oil industry. The benefactor was flabbergasted. No one in Texas would have cared about an association with the oil industry, even if LBJ decided to run for Governor or the Senate. He then realized that this impoverished twentysomething newbie Congressman wasn't thinking in those terms. He was thinking about the Presidency.

Everyone – and I mean everyone – urged him not to accept the Vice Presidency. He was “Master of the Senate” (the title of Caro’s third book), already fantastically more powerful than any VP could ever be. It made no sense to anyone but LBJ. He made no bones about why he was accepting the position. He expected to die early – all the Johnson men did – and this was likely his last shot at the Presidency.

He told people why he was accepting the position. On the night of JFK's inauguration, he told Clare Booth Luce. He had previously told other trusted friends and journalists. I may not have the quote exactly right, but it was very close to this: “I’m a gamblin’ man, darlin’, and this is the only chance I got. One in six Presidents dies in office. I’ve done the research.” And he actually had done the research.

Of the 45 men who have served as POTUS, 8 have died in office so as of now, it's a little more than 1 in 6. When JFK was inaugurated, it was 7 of the first 33 presidents had died in office, so if he did the research, his arithmetic was really bad.

As it turned out, of course, his gamble paid off. His Presidency turned into a Shakespearean tragedy as Vietnam escalated from something like 15,000 American advisers to more than 500,000 troops - but he had achieved the Presidency as he had always dreamed.

Suspicious? Sure. But on the other hand, who would have spoken this brazenly before JFK's inauguration and then actually have masterminded or even participated in the JFKA? Anyone involved, up to and including LBJ, would have been risking certain execution. LBJ was very aware of his place in history – he has a far larger place than I had realized – and there is no way in my opinion (or Caro’s, I surmise) that he would’ve risked throwing it (and the vast wealth he had achieved) all away. Just an aside, but there was far more to Ladybird than I had ever realized - and I don't believe LBJ would have done that to her, either.

Of the presidents in my lifetime starting with Truman, only Biden was a worse POTUS and he was the worst of all time. LBJ was a very consequential president but most of his consequences were very bad.

He was a dutiful VP, remaining loyal through all the Uncle Cornpone stuff and the demeaning sideline role to which he was relegated. He utterly despised RFK (the feeling was mutual) but not so much JFK.

I have no doubt he regarded the JFKA as an unbelievable stroke of luck and wasn’t shedding any tears. However, the more I learn the less likely I think it is that he had any role in the JFKA or any preknowledge of it. Robet Morrow, as you will see if you care to do so, vehemently disagrees.

Here's wacky Robert, for whom a tinfoil hat simply isn't sufficient:



See https://www.wsj.com/articles/front-runner-for-texas-school-board-wants-to-teach-pole-dancing-conspiracy-theories-11583526093 ("AUSTIN, Texas—He wears a jester hat, frequently tweets photos of women’s breasts and advocates for teaching in schools that Lyndon Johnson assassinated John F. Kennedy.").

The people who think LBJ was behind the JFKA are no wackier than those who suspect the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, the Soviets, the Cubans or anyone else. There is no evidence to implicate anyone except LHO.

[Lance Payette]

That's not how criminal investigators identify suspects. They look at the available evidence and figure out who that evidence indicates committed the crime.  They don't start out with who had a motive. That's a bassackwards approach. The purpose of an investigation is to whittle down the number of suspects. Looking at who had a motive will increase the number of suspects. There were far many more people who had motive to kill JFK than there were people who took part in the crime. When one takes an evidence base approach, they end up with only one suspect.

You seem almost compelled to attempt kneejerk oneupsmanship on every thread. Your statement is simply wrong. I spent 20 of my 40 years as a lawyer working in offices that did little but criminal prosecution. The cui bono inquiry is often one of the initial stages in crime analysis and one of the most critical. Cui bono "is a foundational principle in crime analysis used to identify potential suspects and motives by determining who gains from a criminal act." Often, as in the Nancy Guthrie case, the evidence leads nowhere. Sometimes there is no meaningful evidence. Cui bono is a tool to identify those who had a motive, which the investigative process can then whittle down. For those not inclined to accept the LN verdict, cui bono would put LBJ and probably Carlos Marcello at the top of the list, even if neither actually had anything to do with the JFKA. As I said, with LBJ there is really no credible evidence, but this does not mean that a cui bono inquiry is illegitimate.

[Lance Payette]

The people who think LBJ was behind the JFKA are no wackier than those who suspect the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, the Soviets, the Cubans or anyone else. There is no evidence to implicate anyone except LHO.

Some - Robert Morrow - are, some aren't. Wackiness is in the eye of the beholder, but Robert is wacky by any standard.

In my opinion the WC was tasked with toeing the LN line and fulfilled its mission. There was a definite mandate and agenda not to reach a conclusion pointing to the obvious suspects given Oswald's background: the Soviets and/or Cubans. A cui bono analysis would have included all those you listed (and more) precisely because so many individuals and organizations despised JFK and stood to benefit from his death. Indeed, it's quite an astonishing list. The WC legitimately started with Oswald since the Dealey Plaza evidence obviously pointed to him, yet the WC could articulate no clear motive. The WC then did some level of cursory analysis concerning Oswald's possible connections to conspirators and found none. Generations of researchers have been dissatisfied with the WC's and HSCA's analyses and continued the quest. Cui bono points so strongly to LBJ and Marcello that it sometimes seems almost impossible they weren't involved. But the cui bono inquiry simply says "Yes, they had a hell of a motive and should be looked at closely." The WC certainly didn't do this, so I have no problem with CT researchers digging more deeply. As to what they have produced so far, I would say there is no credible or compelling evidence. But this is very common in routine criminal cases as well; the cui bono inquiry may lead nowhere and the perpetrator who is finally arrested turns out never to have been on anyone's radar screen until he slipped up. That was my only point with LBJ: cui bono would say "Take a hard, close look at this guy."

[John Corbett]

Some - Robert Morrow - are, some aren't. Wackiness is in the eye of the beholder, but Robert is wacky by any standard.

Any theory of the assassination that is based on speculation and not hard evidence is wacky.

In my opinion the WC was tasked with toeing the LN line and fulfilled its mission.

Your opinion is a poor substitute for actual evidence that anybody but Oswald took part in the assassination.

There was a definite mandate and agenda not to reach a conclusion pointing to the obvious suspects given Oswald's background: the Soviets and/or Cubans.

Still waiting for your evidence that supports that claim.

A cui bono analysis would have included all those you listed (and more) precisely because so many individuals and organizations despised JFK and stood to benefit from his death.

Every POTUS has enemies. That doesn't mean they resort to assassination. The only person implicated by evidence is LHO. Everything else is unfounded speculation.

Indeed, it's quite an astonishing list. The WC legitimately started with Oswald since the Dealey Plaza evidence obviously pointed to him, yet the WC could articulate no clear motive.

It is completely unnecessary to establish Oswald's motive given the overwhelming amount of evidence he did the deed. Why he did it will never be known nor does it need to be known.

The WC then did some level of cursory analysis concerning Oswald's possible connections to conspirators and found none.

Why does that matter?

Generations of researchers have been dissatisfied with the WC's and HSCA's analyses and continued the quest.

Satisfying the CTs is completely unnecessary to establish that Oswald was the assassin.

Cui bono points so strongly to LBJ and Marcello that it sometimes seems almost impossible they weren't involved.

A completely illogical conclusion completely devoid of supporting evidence.

But the cui bono inquiry simply says "Yes, they had a hell of a motive and should be looked at closely." The WC certainly didn't do this, so I have no problem with CT researchers digging more deeply.

They've been digging for 62 years and have come up empty. They have found no evidence that indicates anybody but LHO was involved in the assassination. Suspicions without evidence doesn't amount to squat.

As to what they have produced so far, I would say there is no credible or compelling evidence.

BINGO!!!

But this is very common in routine criminal cases as well; the cui bono inquiry may lead nowhere and the perpetrator who is finally arrested turns out never to have been on anyone's radar screen until he slipped up. That was my only point with LBJ: cui bono would say "Take a hard, close look at this guy."

62 years of batting .000 gives us no reason to believe Oswald had any accomplices.

[Mark Ulrik]

You [Corbett] seem almost compelled to attempt kneejerk oneupsmanship on every thread.

BINGO!!!