JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Benjamin Cole on May 15, 2026, 10:08:02 AM
-
Is this true: In his biography of Earl Warren, Ed Cray reported that Warren once confided to a friend that "There was great pressure on us to prove, first, that President Johnson was not involved, and, second, that the Russians were not involved."
AI answer:
Yes, this is true. In his 1997 biography, Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren, historian Ed Cray documented that Warren made this exact comment to a friend.
The pressure Warren referred to—namely, ensuring the public was certain neither President Johnson nor the Soviet Union (Russians) were involved—was largely driven by Cold War fears. Commission members were deeply concerned that any credible link to a foreign power or a high-level domestic conspiracy could escalate the geopolitical tensions of the era into a potential nuclear conflict.
You can find further details about his biography and the history of the Warren Commission through the National Archives.
CHIEF JUSTICE: A Biography of Earl Warren. By Ed Cray .<i ...Jun 15, 2540 BE — CHIEF JUSTICE: A Biography of Earl Warren. By Ed Cray . Simon & Schuster: 604 pp., $30. .
-
But, of course! We know the "steer clear of the Russians" angle from many sources. The "steer clear of LBJ" angle is obvious because ... yes, wait for it ... Cui bono? practically screams LBJ was involved. Oddly, despite the "great pressure" the WR doesn't deal with the LBJ elephant in the room at all.
Cray was no lightweight by any means: https://obituaries.paloaltoonline.com/obituaries/print/ed-cray?o=6011.
His biography of Warren, which I admittedly haven't read, won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award as the best law-related book of the year.
-
But, of course! We know the "steer clear of the Russians" angle from many sources. The "steer clear of LBJ" angle is obvious because ... yes, wait for it ... Cui bono? practically screams LBJ was involved. Oddly, despite the "great pressure" the WR doesn't deal with the LBJ elephant in the room at all.
Cray was no lightweight by any means: https://obituaries.paloaltoonline.com/obituaries/print/ed-cray?o=6011.
His biography of Warren, which I admittedly haven't read, won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award as the best law-related book of the year.
What nonsense. Note Warren's wording. He said the pressure was on the to PROVE neither the Russians but LBJ were involved. Nobody thought they were but it was important to prove that to the satisfaction of the American people.
-
What nonsense. Note Warren's wording. He said the pressure was on the to PROVE neither the Russians but LBJ were involved. Nobody thought they were but it was important to prove that to the satisfaction of the American people.
Missed the target again! It was necessary to "prove" LBJ was not involved because the American people, having read enough of Agatha Christie to know about this Cui bono? stuff, were collectively saying "Hey, what about them there Russkies? What about that LBJ guy?" In fact, LBJ's concern was PREDICATED on fear that the public would be clamoring about them there Russkies (and Cubans) and demanding WW3. Substitute "pretty much everybody" for "nobody" in your second sentence and it's closer to the truth. Enquiring minds wonder why, if it was important to prove to the American people that LBJ was not involved, the WC rather pointedly avoided the issue? They could have dismissed it with a simple footnote: "Despite Cui bono? pointing rather decisively to our beloved current President, and despite the plethora of rumors suggesting he was involved, Commission staffer Sally Withers interviewed our beloved current President for more than 30 minutes and has satisfied the Commission that our beloved current President was simply too busy with the business of state to have found time to participate in an assassination. Our beloved current President is hereby exonerated and/or pardoned, as the case may be, and all Cui bono? speculation to the contrary is hereby dismissed as pernicious nonsense and/or claptrap."
-
Here is the full quote from the Cray book about the alleged conversation.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13486903801/Key4luviw2ilpgt/Screenshot 2026-05-15 092216.jpg)
And this:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13486918569/Keys5l4ng0d8fhb/Screenshot 2026-05-15 093027.jpg)
Question: If the claim is that WC was ordered not to look into any Soviet involvement why did Warren say there was great pressure to show there was no Soviet involvement? Wouldn't he say we were told not to look for any? Here he is saying something different; they were pressured to show - not hide - any Soviet involvement.
Full book is here: https://archive.org/details/chiefjusticebiog0000cray/page/428/mode/2up
-
Missed the target again! It was necessary to "prove" LBJ was not involved because the American people, having read enough of Agatha Christie to know about this Cui bono? stuff, were collectively saying "Hey, what about them there Russkies? What about that LBJ guy?" In fact, LBJ's concern was PREDICATED on fear that the public would be clamoring about them there Russkies (and Cubans) and demanding WW3. Substitute "pretty much everybody" for "nobody" in your second sentence and it's closer to the truth]/quote]
Fair point. The reality was LBJ was correct in anticipating public skepticism about the assassination. He was wrong in believing a thorough examination would quell public skepticism which continues to this day.
I have a hard time believing that most Americans would be demanding WWIII which would result in tens of millions of deaths on both sides. I think a harsh response would have been made but I doubt LBJ would have launched a nuclear attack. Maybe our response would have triggered a counter response by the USSR, and maybe things would have spiraled out of control into WWIII, but I don't think that would be what most Americans would want.
Just yesterday I was wondering what J.D. Vance's response would be if Trump were to be assassinated in China. I was thinking that watching the very impressive military parade in front of the two leaders. I would bet that none of the rifles they were carrying had live rounds in them and I would hope that precautions were taken to ensure that they didn't. Suppose they didn't and some rogue soldier decided to shoot JFK. There was one moment when a Chinese soldier was carrying a sword within yards of Trump and Xi. I would bet that if he were to suddenly attack Trump with the sword, no one could have stopped him.
Enquiring minds wonder why, if it was important to prove to the American people that LBJ was not involved, the WC rather pointedly avoided the issue? They could have dismissed it with a simple footnote: "Despite Cui bono? pointing rather decisively to our beloved current President, and despite the plethora of rumors suggesting he was involved, Commission staffer Sally Withers interviewed our beloved current President for more than 30 minutes and has satisfied the Commission that our beloved current President was simply too busy with the business of state to have found time to participate in an assassination. Our beloved current President is hereby exonerated and/or pardoned, as the case may be, and all Cui bono? speculation to the contrary is hereby dismissed as pernicious nonsense and/or claptrap."
The simple fact is the WC followed the evidence to a logical conclusion. Their explanation is the only one ever offered that is consistent with the entire body of evidence. People have been offering up nebulous alternate theories as to how the assassination went down, but no one has ever put together a comprehensive alternate explanation of the evidence. The evidence of Oswald's guilt is conclusive and to this day, no one has under covered a single piece of credible evidence that anybody else was involved. After six decades of searching, I am amused by people who continue this never-ending snipe hunt.