Larry Hancock's Blog, page 23

Radicalization

Given the chaos of domestic news these days, its difficult for a good many issues to penetrate the media for any period of time. One of those issues is the extent to which the internet is being used for domestic radicalization and incitement to violence.

Certainly I’m not ignoring the foreign aspects of the information warfare being waged within social media, but with the launch of Killing King on the anniversary of MLK’s assassination, Stu and I were both surprised to find virtually a total lack of interest in its implications related to contemporary acts of violence.

Given that, I though I would post a couple of excerpts from the one interview (VICE Magazine) we did where that subject was addressed.  I’ll put in the full interview link after those excerpts:

How do you think the white supremacist moment we’re in right now, with Trump and the Alt Right, compares to what went on back then in the late 60s?

Larry Hancock: What’s happening now is an enabling thing. Whenever these folks are able to get broad attention, as we saw during the 1960s, more recruiting happened. In 1967, the White Knights recruited young people. They used these people basically as their terrorist foot soldiers. They were young, relatively naive, and easily manipulated. It was the groups of older, more experienced radicals who actually were able to recruit young people like this and send them out on major terror attacks.

I’m afraid that’s exactly what we’re seeing now. If you look at the connections of some of the recent church shootings and school shootings, you will find that these are young people who have been radicalized by the same sort of racist, nativist network that has the same footprint that it did back in the 1960s.

Stuart Wexler:

There’s this giant continuum of Klan violence from the time the Klan was formed in the later 19th Century until the present. Wesley Swift’s influence on white supremacy is so profound that it’s now in the ether of what the white supremacist movement breathes. Specifically the focus on a race war. This wasn’t something that you saw as part of the motivation for racial violence before the 1960s. But in 1968, that’s what we believe motivated the people to kill King, and in 2016, virtually everybody who commits these racist acts, people like Dylann Roof, they’re talking about race war. That’s because Wesley Swift’s Christian Identity ideas, over a period of five decades, filtered into the white supremacist movement. Even the groups that say they’re not Christian Identity or that broke away from Christian Identity, this notion of a race war is very profound.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evqbyp/the-strange-tangled-web-of-assassination-plots-against-mlk

For those who might be skeptical that such groups still exist or are increasingly active – and that acts of violence result from their influence –  you might check these two links:

https://www.adl.org/blog/florida-white-supremacist-group-admits-ties-to-alleged-parkland-school-shooter-nikolas-cruz

https://www.adl.org/blog/new-mexico-school-shooter-also-fixated-on-violence-against-jews

 

Sample Killing King

I’ve spoken about our new book, Killing King,  here previously so I’m not going to repeat that other than to say that the book represents some eight years of research on the conspiracy that actually assassinated MLK Jr.  It represents brand new research, explores leads only superficially examined by the FBI, identifies new sources and new suspects and is unlike anything  you have read previously (unless you read The Awful Grace of God).

This new edition takes our study much deeper, with new documents which were not available previously and most importantly with some new names and connections, especially in connection to the money behind the plot, where it was raised and how it was moved – and connecting those names to James Earl Ray.

The book also deals with the reasons why this story has not emerged up to this point in time.

Enough said, if you want to sample the book and get a feel for its direction, the first chapter is available for free viewing now, courtesy of CrimeReads.  You can find it at:

http://crimereads.com/the-dixie-mafias-plot-to-kill-martin-luther-king-jr/

Weaponizing News

Current events continue to lead me to focus on and attempt to alert people to the extent that news stories are being altered and hoaxed for use as actual political weapons via the internet. While most of the current news coverage has to do with the extent to which Facebook’s demographic data collection was – and probably still is – being used by Russian actors in both the 2016 elections and ongoing efforts to divide and fragment the American public, there are a lot more weapons available than the Facebook data. And those tools are available to both individuals and activist groups who are taking advantage of them to do exactly the same thing the Russian political warfare is doing, dividing and fragmenting the American public for political purposes.

One of the things that has emerged from actual studies of the Russian information warfare is the danger of short term messaging; by short term I don’t mean the sort of Facebook campaigns which used structured political messaging in literally tens of thousands of targeted ads but rather the power of tweets, retweets, hashtags and other instant messaging systems.  The speed at which those tools allow weaponized news to go viral is amazing, and totally outpaces not only fact checking but the possibility that news sources may make mistakes and then recant. The recantations never, ever, catch up with the false news.

We witnessed an example of that this weekend when a series of doctored news items concerning Parkland shooting survivor Emma Gonzalez “ripping up the U.S. Constitution” went viral on social media. The story and images involved were totally false – but easily planted using what are called “free speech outlets”, which offer no checking of information and simply serve as a conduit for anything sent though them. In this instance it appears to have begun with a “doctored” animation placed on GAB (an ultra-conservative outlet) and then forwarded via Twitter. Within a matter of minutes the original tweet had been retweeted 1,500 times and liked 2,900 times. In time GAB was forced to acknowledge that the original was a fake but of course the damage had already been done and all those wanting to believe such a thing had no doubt internalized it as confirmation of their own views.

Long before the truth could catch up the story had crossed platforms and was appearing on websites and blogs. Adam Baldwin immediately tweeted the totally false story to 270,000 of his followers. And the story was added to an extended campaign already targeting Gonzalez, largely fed via 4Chan – an outlet routinely used by Russian trolls. That campaign accused her of being an illegal alien but also included anti-Semitic attacks on her and her family. If that doesn’t seem to make sense, it doesn’t have to, these sorts of campaigns feed off hate, and neither consistency nor rationality are required. And of course the story was also posted to Reddit’s pro-Trump page r/The Donald and widely shared by conservative news figures.

For more details on the Gonzalez information warfare check:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/us/emma-gonzalez-photo-doctored-trnd/index.html

If you are not familiar with “open” comment/news sites such as 4chan take a look at these links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan

Bottom line for me is that the weaknesses of Facebook are now known. There are some remedies and to some extent its use in information warfare to date has been more as a tool for actors with lots of money, implanting structured campaigns. That makes them a bit easier to at least track.

The sort of hate campaigns seen in the Gonzalez incident can be triggered by a single individual, or optimized by a handful of people – or bots. It’s the tweets, shares, retweets and shamefully unchecked repetition that makes them so dangerous.  In that regard the internet is not to blame, it the internet users. And so far, even with all the recent news, there is no sign that those users are becoming any more alert or responsible in their usage – that is truly scary.

Where do you get your news?

A week or so I was seated for a jury duty call and one of the questions asked during the juror interrogatory was literally that – where do you get your news, and specifically do you get it from Facebook or social media.  In that instance the attorney was particularly concerned about jurors prejudicing themselves with information on the crime being tried, on the defendant, literally by taking it on their own initiative to investigate the case for themselves online.

It was a good question, a real concern and of course has much broader implications. It’s also something I address in considerable detail in my book Creating Chaos on political warfare which will be coming out in late summer/early fall.   I was thinking about doing a post on this subject late last week, especially when the topic of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica came up in the news, both of which receive a good deal of attention in the final chapters of the book. Fortunately I was doing my research before Facebook removed certain of their advertising materials, featuring the capabilities of their demographic targeting, and its use in political messaging. A year ago that was something for them to tout – much of that is gone now – especially after the recent exposure of those its profiling capabilities and the impact it’s had on their stock.

The very thing that makes social media so addictive – its ability to track your preferences and guide you to materials which match them (not just in books, shopping, music, dating, etc) and so attractive for marketing (products, politics, messages, and for that matter hate) is what makes it so financially attractive in a business sense.  Having worked in marketing and advertising for a couple of decades, I personally experienced the escalation in reader/viewer targeting which began in print, moved on to the broadcast media and then to the internet.

The goal was always to target your message as finely as possible, both geographically and demographically. The more information a given media collected and made available to the advertiser the better – it allowed messages to be finally tailored and delivered specifically to those who would be most likely to actually welcome them.  And “advertorials” where viewed as an especially  positive tool, providing facts to educate the reader/viewer while still promoting your product or service.  The only limitation was that it was all very expensive because even the best options for slicing and dicing target groups were relatively limited in either print or broadcast media.

The fact that Facebook, or any social media outlet, can collect information for user profiling is both a service and an exposure, initially everybody loved it including American political parties…until the Russians jumped in with their own agenda and poisoned the well.  My own caution here is that much of the current angst about purported academics sharing profile information collected on Facebook for commercial purposes is way too focused.

You should take a look at all your social media and research how it makes money from marketing and advertising (including not just ad clicks but page views), and think about how it could be in business without that. I have friends who happily used the customized marketing features of Facebook for their own purposes but now are concerned that “bad people” do the same thing with very loaded and nasty messaging.

Think about it a minute, do you set up your own social messaging selections only to track what you prefer in terms of news, excluding all others? Do you just follow the hashtags that excite you?  Do you complain about people that only watch FOX, or MSNBC or perhaps RT…and then intentionally build walls about your own news choices?  Digital communications of all forms have created the ability to customize the world we all see each day, which means they also tempt us into a process very similar to operant conditioning.

The Russian internet messaging is very skillful in the use of operant conditioning, providing both positive and negative reinforcement to its targeted demographics…telling you both good things and bad things, and channeling that information through people and sources you have shown a tendency to trust though your own preferences.  It can be a very addictive process, ideal for religious and political recruiting as ISIS demonstrated and as a variety of nativist and racist groups are demonstrating in both the United States and Europe…check out the Florida school shooter’s conditioning experience as an example.

Bottom line, be very careful where you get your news – and don’t think the only worry is Facebook.  Still, for a bit more on its specific problems, you might want the check out the following links:

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/14/facebook-election-meddling/

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/03/suspending-cambridge-analytica/

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/technology/cambridge-analytica-scientist-aleksandr-kogan/index.html

Advertisements

JFK Records Release Update

I haven’t posted on this topic for some time but everyone should know that there some very serious researchers following what did – and what didn’t – happen with the scheduled release last year. In particular, my friend Rex Bradford has been examining the releases in terms of what was supposed to be made public, and what has not been. This is technical work and demands an extreme level of background in terms of the various official statements about the types and quantities of records to be released, as compared to what is actually occurring.

In a recent conference call, Rex updated the members of the Mary Ferrell Foundation Board on his research, we discussed issues and agreed that it was necessary to officially go on record with the national records archivist as to what we perceived as open issues. A letter was developed and today it was transmitted to NARA. We think the letter is objective and highlights issues as well as what needs to be done to address them.

You can find the letter on the Foundation web site at the following link; for those who are interested, I hope you find it informative:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Letter_to_Archivist_March2018.html

 

Killing King – The Difference

 

Stu Wexler and I are both happy that our new book Killing King should be available during the next few weeks; it is available now on Amazon for pre-order:

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-King-Racial-Terrorists-Assassinate/dp/1619029197/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Pre-publication reviews always raise author anxiety levels but fortunately we have received very positive write-ups from respected sources such as Kirkus, Booklist and Publishers weekly. Publishers Weekly went so far as to give us a starred review, which is exciting for any new book:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781619029194

Now if you have read or are familiar with our earlier work; The Awful Grace of God, obvious questions are why another book on the King assassination and what’s different about it.

The simple answer is that it takes a great deal of time to obtain information via FOIA and as part of our research we literally had to wait years to get certain materials, some of which opened up entirely new leads. Stu largely carried the ball in that effort and as our research continued we found that we could flesh out certain areas – such as the convoluted process by which the White Knights actually attempted to first patsy and then kill one of their own to divert attention from their involvement.

We also discovered new connections between where the money for the final bounty offer was raised – in Atlanta – and the mechanics (meaning the cut-outs, covers and connections) between several of the individuals, including Ray, in what was an evolving plot.

Once you get your head around the fact that the same people had been trying to kill Dr. King for years, you face up to the fact that it involved several sub-plots and many different people over that time and it is in no way simple and straight forward.

My contribution was convincing Stu that we finally had enough detail to essentially write more focused book, more of a true crime story than the broader historical study that you find in The Awful Grace of God.  Killing King is more focused, more detailed, and a deeper view into the plots and players.

It’s definitely a frightening story and as a side note it helps get across the point that the type of thinking involved, the types of groups involved and the way in which they connect older, seasoned members with easily influenced young people  is still a very contemporary concern – as we have seen in several brutal Church and school shootings over the last couple of years.

Head Shakers

 

OK, I know that there are more than enough things going on to worry almost anyone at this point in time – but there are also things going on that just make me shake my head…if I could express it verbally it would go along with the refrain from this song (and yes I am that old).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g02WmLzozs8

I figured it might make me feel better if others were shaking their heads as well so here are some small samples for you – and since much of my research and writing has to do with national security, that’s the source for all three.

First off, everyone who is not in denial is quite aware that Russia is engaged in a number of types of political warfare against the EU, NATO and the U.S.  Some of it involves military posturing – enough to stampede us into a horrendous defense budget escalation – and some of it involves some rather sophisticated psychological warfare using social media. Both those tracks have been in play for some four years now and show no sign of diminishing. The other track which appears to so far have been more “exploratory” than anything else involves actual direct intrusion into our voting systems. That is documented to some extent already and certainly get worse should any sophisticated aggressor decide to take the risk. Given that, consider the following news article, which relates how one of our most experienced experts in countering that threat is being removed from the field:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-election-masterson-exclusiv/exclusive-u-s-official-focused-on-election-security-being-shoved-aside-idUSKCN1G62NI

Next, we move on to something that really made me shake my head when I really thought about the story for a bit.  Everyone is aware of the “nuclear football”, the so called bomb bag, which carries the nuclear response options which the President can order in response to an attack…or whatever. I cover this in Surprise Attack and actually following the Cuban Missile Crisis and JFK’s experience there, the options expanded significantly (when he looked his choices over there was really only one – nuke everybody consider communist, whether they actually attacked us or not, including Russia and China and the satellite countries).  Over time many more options were developed and coded and nobody really expects the President to study this stuff (another reason to shake your head) so the bag is always carried by an officer who understands them and can help the President decide on what set of targeting options to select.

Well it seems that on his trip to China President Trump was accompanied by the football and the officer as SOP…including on his various travels and into meetings with the Chinese. Indeed there appears to have been a bit of a tussle over the bag at one point. This makes me wonder how long that had been going on….I mean carrying all your nuclear strike options as well as the officer who knows them by heart directly into the physical premises of folks you actually consider as a potential military opponent? I’m thinking you really should not do that and that while the President is on such a trip you should have a backup protocol. Read this story and think about what could actually go wrong…

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18604/confusion-surrounds-confrontation-with-nuclear-football-during-trumps-beijing-visit

For my third point, I return to something I covered in an earlier post. However over the last few weeks more detail has emerged in this incident; an incident in which an unidentified aircraft (referred to in FAA dialog as an “intruder”) moved down and back over the west coast, flying at high speeds at commercial aircraft altitudes, reported by a number of airline flights and tracked at points by FAA operations centers. The aircraft had no transponder, responded to no radio calls, was reported to NORAD and apparently either totally escaped NORAD radar tracking or somehow managed to spoof it – the result being that even when fighters were scrambled no intercepts were made. Whatever the aircraft was, its flight demonstrated that the entire west coast is seemingly wide open to aerial surveillance and attack.  Not a sneak attack mind you since this aircraft didn’t really do anything all that sneaky, it was in plain sight, not at extreme high or low altitudes and just “cruising”.  The following video is a bit sensational but it contains the full FAA tape of calls relating to the aircraft so that’s pretty worthwhile. As to what the Air Force and NORAD knew, knows or did…they simply are not saying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZJxjJPa5Vc&feature=youtu.be

Russian Deniability

 

In respect to deniability, the United States was frequently forced to turn to its practices during the Cold War – usually very ineffectively given that its various covert and political warfare operations sometimes failed rather spectacularly…even when successful, they fooled few observers.  The Russians were quite good at deniability, even in the face of obvious facts, however other than in spying and espionage they found themselves able to operate more openly and had less need for it.

There are a number of elements in deniable practices but cut outs and autonomous operations are fundamental. A number of American CIA operations which could be called “rogue” were conducted with great autonomy, in an effort to isolate the President from blame if they failed – or from accusations given their illegality. General high level statements along the lines of “we need to do something” translated into more aggressive and often high risk operations as they passed down the chain of operational command.

In contemporary times, we are seeing quite similar practices occurring within the new Russia. There are some excellent books on Putin’s rise to power and his modes of operation – which are quite tactical. Reportedly he has become quite proficient at the leadership game of calling out issues to subordinates and when they respond with plans or actions simply telling them to do what they think best.

It’s a classic form of deniability but as certain American presidents found, it can also go very bad – very quickly. If you seriously want to understand the context of what is going on in the new Russia, I highly recommend All the Kremlin’s Men by Mikhail Zygar. It does an excellent job of describing Putin’s rise to power but is far more important for an appreciation of how he has repeatedly used various sets of Russian oligarchs for his purposes, leveraging them for deniability and ruthlessly discarding them if they embarrass him or fail to perform.

That practice is going to become very clear as the investigation of Russian information warfare makes it more visible – in the end Putin may well take the Reagan position over Iran-Contra i.e. it was a bad deal and nobody told me they were doing it. I was really sincere when I told your President my government was not officially involved, it was a group of bad apples, rogues…

At the moment, one of the risks is that this level of autonomous operations is translating beyond information warfare and into military operations. It was evident in the Crimea and Ukraine for those who were not in denial, with some “volunteers” actually recruited and financed by very wealthy Russian capitalists. It’s becoming even more obvious in Syria, with Russian military contracting companies being exposed.

The thing is that it often works well at first, until casualties start to pick up and friends and families at home begin to ask questions about the bodies. In Syria, it appears that the head of a contracting firm named Wagner (Dmitry Utkin, a former colonel in the Russian Special Forces) may have seen an opportunity to gain control and revenues from what was thought to be an ISIS vacated oil field. Utkin is under US sanctions for assisting pro-Russian separatists in the conflict in eastern Ukraine and was formerly head of security for Yevgeny Prigozhin, himself recently indicted by Robert Mueller for funding the infamous Internet Research Agency, operating out of St. Petersburg.

If you have not been following the results of the Russian led military efforts in Syria, in particular the recent engagement with American backed forces, an engagement which proved to be highly violent and quite deadly for the Russian initiative, check out the following link:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18533/russian-mercenaries-take-a-lead-in-attacks-on-us-and-allied-forces-in-syria

Individuals with the wealth and connections of Prigozhin provide a great degree of deniability for policy decisions made in Moscow – and as long as their actions appear to be working it’s a fine thing. When they are either exposed or fail, things could get a bit nastier. Vladimir Putin is known for his classic Russian cultural world view, which involves supporting success but dealing harshly with failure.

Russian Role Reversal

 

One of the major themes in Creating Chaos – now in edit and still scheduled for publication in September – is the dramatic reversal of roles between the United States and Russia which has occurred in the second decade of the 21st Century.  Creating Chaos is primarily a study of political warfare but there is always a shadow side to such competitions, deniable military action via surrogate forces, detached military or paramiliary forces under commercial cover. During the 20th Century, especially the Cold War era, deniable military action was largely a practice of the United States.

There were a variety of reasons for that, perhaps the most significant being that with America’s failure to comprehend the forces of nationalism and populism – instead seeing virtually all political change as an effect of a global communist movement – the Russians had the advantage of most often being invited into countries where regime change had occurred. In fact since the U.S. (other than under President Kennedy) failed to understand or cope with nations who pursued policies of neutrality, the Soviet Union was also able to extend its influence via trade and military sales agreements as America backed away from neutral nations and most often moved to covertly bring about new cycles of regime change with the intent of replacing neutral governments.

While that assessment may offend some, I think I make the case for it in considerable detail in Creating Chaos so I will leave the defense of that assessment to the book.  The corollary to the American geopolitical stance, which most often opposed regime change, was an extended series of covert military operations, most often conducted by CIA field officers, exercising control over exiled, expatriate or local volunteers. Generally speaking, the success of those operations was limited and the long term effect on America’s image was negative, to put it mildly. If that sounds like sour grapes you only need to compare the international image of the United States immediately following World War II to perceptions during the 1960s and 1970s.

A broad and objective look at the practices of deniable military action, and the covers used to conceal it (which virtually never fooled anyone) are contained in both Shadow Warfare and to a lesser extent in Creating Chaos.  That exploration includes the variant which uses military contractors and “volunteers” as surrogates for formal military deployments.  The history of contractors such as Blackwater in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya tell that story effectively. Reliance on contractors and paid local forces is dicey at best, illustrated by the failure of the British security contractors (almost never discussed) and paid local militia (discussed even less) in Benghazi, Libya. And when you have to send in either the military or contractors to protect the leaders of new governments you have put in place, as both Russia and the U.S. did in Afghanistan, it’s a clue you made a really bad mistake in the first place.

Strangely – or perhaps not – what we see happening in the 21st Century is one more example of nations and leaders being totally unable to learn from history.  Of course neither East nor West seems to be able to learn simply to stay out of Afghanistan.  But today it seems that the new Russia may be proving itself to be as blind to history as the United States has shown itself to be time and again.  That story is also a major part of Creating Chaos, and if you are not following the new tactics of Russian use of detached military, of “vacationers” and now of deniable military contractors, you are missing it.  It has been visible in the Ukraine, obscured by the political conflicts there, but is becoming much easier to see in Syria.

And in Syria, matters are progressing to the point that U.S. military operations are directly opposing surrogate forces led by deniable Russian fighters, deniable to the extent that they are operating as military contractors.  It’s a familiar cover but this is the first time in a long time – since Korea and possibly at a far more minimal level in Laos – that U.S. military forces are engaging and killing Russians.  Given the national news of the day, you are not seeing this in the major media, but you can find a good in depth analysis at the link below:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18533/russian-mercenaries-take-a-lead-in-attacks-on-us-and-allied-forces-in-syria

Killing King

 

Those of you who read The Awful Grace of God know that Stu Wexler and I have been digging into the conspiracy which resulted in the death of Martin Luther King Jr. for some years now,  overall it’s probably a good seven years by this point. We picked up the trail from the work of the HSCA and in particular a large number of FBI investigative reports, many obtained via FOIA. In fact a considerable number of those FOIA requests required challenges and revisits with both the FBI and NARA and the information in them was not available to us until after the publication of our first book on the subject.

What we found was that – in contrast to the JFK investigation which only remained truly open ended for less than 24 hours – the FBI had conducted a far broader inquiry into leads related to Dr. King’s murder. Part of that was due to the fact that initially, dealing with multiple names and aliases, they felt that there were at least three actual participants. Of course that was in conflict with the statement from the Attorney General given immediately following the attack, claiming that it was strictly the work of one man.  Years later the AG admitted that his remarks were knowingly false, designed strictly for containment purposes and to deal with the rioting that had begun to sweep the nation.

Given that it took a matter of months to isolate the FBI search to James Earl Ray, a great many leads were documented and explored at least to a minimal level, providing us with a much greater breadth of actual investigative data than we find with the JFK or RFK murders. But what we learned as a result of our work was that the breadth of that data was not internally available either within the FBI investigation or to the Justice Department at the time.  It was spread among field office and individual agent reports – and most importantly, relevant names and connections were not readily visible without the sort of computerized “database mining” that is now available to us. Those techniques allowed us to locate and even question living FBI investigators and suspects in a fashion that simply had not ever been done.

My friend Stu Wexler played point in much of the field investigative work, making multiple trips to the south as well as to the archives – that work has continued since the publication of our first book and now I’m happy to announce that we have published a much deeper and more focused view of the conspiracy – and the network of individuals involved – in a new book which will be available in April.

Killing King provides the full picture of how the plots against King originated and evolved over some four years, of the sophisticated cut outs that were used to conceal the plot even from certain individuals who were tangentially involved with it, and an expanded picture of how James Earl Ray was ultimately recruited into the effort. It also explores our speculation that Ray himself may well have preempted the plan for an even more sensational, highly public murder of Dr. King – leaving him unable to actually collect the bounty money due him and with funds so limited that he actually had to rob a bank in England during his escape, simply to afford food and one more airline ticket.

The book is now available on Amazon for preorder:

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-King-Racial-Terrorists-Assassinate/dp/1619029197/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517063525&sr=1-1&keywords=killing+king+wexler

And for those not familiar with our King investigative work, the following link will take you to a recent talk show discussion which I did with Jeff Bushman. There are a few minutes of general news commentary at the beginning so if you want to jump right into the MLK dialog just start a bit into the program.  You will find it at:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jeff-bushman/2018/01/27/speaking-of-everything-with-jeff-bushman