It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DeathSlayer
And what has Trump done beside stiff contractors and scam the American people all while sucking on his silver spoon?
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DeathSlayer
Everything. The only reason you're talking about this man is because Trump attacked him on Twitter. Oh and nice thread to create on MLK day. Have you no shame?
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: DeathSlayer
Yea Dude wants the struggle to go on and on long after whitey has answered for his sin so to say. Got a black man in the white house and still the crap keeps flowing. But really without the thing is really just another useless public blow hard with leftover ideas that have been forged into hate speech over the years. He wouldn't even have the seat he does if blacks didn't send him there year after years to keep looking for that GD mule and 40 acres.
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DeathSlayer
Everything. The only reason you're talking about this man is because Trump attacked him on Twitter. Oh and nice thread to create on MLK day. Have you no shame?
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DeathSlayer
Everything. The only reason you're talking about this man is because Trump attacked him on Twitter. Oh and nice thread to create on MLK day. Have you no shame?
originally posted by: muse7
I just hope you were this outraged when Trump, Arpaio and other countless Right wing hacks were questioning Obama's legitimacy because of his weird, foreign sounding last name and skin color.
originally posted by: muse7
I just hope you were this outraged when Trump, Arpaio and other countless Right wing hacks were questioning Obama's legitimacy because of his weird, foreign sounding last name and skin color.
But should closure — or forgetfulness – follow a verdict that finds the federal government complicit in a conspiracy to assassinate one of this nation’s most historic figures? Are there indeed legitimate reasons to doubt the official story? And how should Americans evaluate this unorthodox trial, its evidence and the verdict? Without doubt, the trial in Memphis lacked the neat wrap-up of a Perry Mason.
The testimony was sometimes imprecise, dredging up disputed memories more than three decades old. Some testimony was hearsay; long depositions by deceased or absent figures were read into the record; and some witnesses had changed their stories over time amid accusations of profiteering. There was a messiness that often accompanies complex cases of great notoriety. The plaintiff’s case also did not encounter a rigorous challenge from Lewis K. Garrison, the attorney for defendant Loyd Jowers. Garrison shares the doubts about the official version, and his client, Jowers, has implicated himself in the conspiracy, although insisting his role was tangential. Some critics compared the trial to a professional wrestling match with the defense putting up only token resistance. Yet, despite the shortcomings, the trial was the first time that evidence from the King assassination was presented to a jury in a court of law. The verdict demonstrated that 12 citizens — six blacks and six whites — did not find the notion of a wide-ranging conspiracy to kill King as ludicrous as many commentators did.
The trial suggested, too, that the government erred by neglecting the larger issue of public interest in the mystery of who killed Martin Luther King Jr. Instead the government simply affirmed and reaffirmed James Earl Ray’s guilty plea for three decades. Insisting that the evidence pointed clearly toward Ray as the assassin, the government never agreed to vacate Ray’s guilty plea and allow for a full-scale trial, a possibility that ended when Ray died from liver disease in 1998.
At that point, the King family judged that a wrongful death suit against Jowers was the last chance for King’s murder to be considered by a jury. From the start, the family encountered harsh criticism from many editorial writers who judged the conspiracy allegations nutty. The King family’s suspicions, however, derived from one fact that was beyond dispute: that powerful elements of the federal government indeed were out to get Martin Luther King Jr. in the years before his murder. In particular, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover despised King as a dangerous radical who threatened the national security and needed to be neutralized by almost any means necessary. After King’s “I have a dream speech” in 1963, FBI assistant director William Sullivan called King “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.” Hoover reacted to King’s Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 with the comment that King was “the most notorious liar in the country.”