Douglas Caddy

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/10/28/jfk-files-cover-up-continues-president-assassination.html

Fascinating and informative article: JFK files: Could Knoxville man have been mystery caller? http://www.knoxnews.com/story/entertainment/columnists/wayne-bledsoe/2017/10/27/jfk-files-john-f-kennedy-assassination-lee-harvey-oswald-knoxville-man-john-bowen-mystery-caller/807818001/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5026909/CIA-offered-gangsters-150-000-assassinate-Castro.html

John Newman posted this on Facebook today: OK--new thread. Japanese film crew left. I'm ready to roll out the DCI 5/5/72 injunction against ever asking defectors any questions about Oswald AND the fact that the 10/26/17 release is missing a rather provocative third page that we were discussing about 2 hours ago. The new release even has a different RIF from the previously released version that I found on MFF. There are several interesting angles (as mentioned in the missing p. 3) about all of this:

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today: What recourse do we have when the U.S. national security state brazenly defies the law and the democratic process, as these security officials did this week by blocking the release of the JFK papers? Julian Assange offers one possible response to this official illegality, announcing that WikiLeaks is offering $100,000 for the withheld documents. I would hope that there are honorable officials within our security agencies and the National Archives that would do the right thing... WITHOUT being paid. There are many such decent people in these government institutions -- dedicated public servants who know that our country can never move forward unless we honestly confront our past. This country is in desperate need of a "truth and reconciliation" process. Why did the CIA and FBI block the release of the Kennedy documents? It was a desperate move that has only further fueled suspicion that these agencies were involved in the crime and coverup. Assange suggested several possible explanations: A. “Show power over Trump,” B. “Ruin Trump’s PR move,” C. “Serious incompetence” or D. “Conceal activities.” I think the answer is obvious: D. The chiefs of our security agencies violated the law this week. But there are hundreds of government employees in a position to obey it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5022503/White-House-won-t-say-JFK-papers-include-Ted-Cruz-s-dad.html

As the person who posted this thread, I don't think the formatting is insane. I copied the text and photos of four books as they appeared on Facebook and posted these here as copied. I had no control as to how they ultimately appeared in the thread. Software glitches beyond anyone's control occasionally occur.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/27/unsealed-docs-reveal-kgb-thought-lbj-could-have-been-behind-jfk-assassination/

Yes, I felt Rachel let her viewers down in how she handled this topic. Truth was DOA. Chris Matthews on his show tonight was even worse.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4778131/jfk-files-cia-lee-harvey-oswald-secret-agent/

Lee Shepherd wrote on Facebook today: The CIA asked for and received a privileged extension twenty-five years ago on a mandate by Congress to reveal all the JFK files. They did so to cover the villains of this crime who were still alive. Now they demand the President extend this mendacity and criminality. There can be only one reason for this: "George Herbert Walker Bush."

http://prorev.com/wwduncan.htm

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/27/jfk-files-released-former-cia-director-james-woolsey-explains-his-theory-lee-harvey

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today: What should you read to enlighten yourself about the Kennedy assassination, as the CIA and the news media continue to keep America in the dark? Here's my top ten list -- and yes I shamelessly begin with my own two books, because I do believe they offer the most readable and comprehensive look at how and why JFK was killed and the crime was covered up. I know I've left out some very worthy books in the long line of scholarship on the subject because I've limited myself to ten.... But feel free to suggest your own: 1. Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Era 2. The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America's Secret Government 3. JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass, the awful truth, in beautiful prose 4. The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi -- a riveting inside look at the 1970s House Select Committee on Assassinations probe, which found evidence of a conspiracy 5. Breach of Trust, by Gerald McKnight -- the best book on the Warren Commission 6. All-American Mafioso, by Charles Rappleye --no, the Mafia didn't mastermind the assassination and coverup, but they played a key role under the direction of the CIA. And mobster Johnny Rosselli was killed as Congress began investigating in the '70s because he knew too much. 7. Reclaiming Parkland, by James Di Eugenio -- a brilliant dissection of the Kennedy disinformation complex by one of the most savvy researchers to emerge after Oliver Stone's "JFK," the co-editor with Lisa Pease of the essential '90s journal, Probe. 8. Dallas ’63, by Peter Dale Scott, the latest volume by the grand old man of Kennedy research 9. Oswald and the CIA, by John Newman -- a former military intelligence analyst who knows how to follow the Oswald espionage trail. Also check out Newman's latest books on the subject. 10. Libra, by Don DeLillo, the best fictional imagining of Oswald and Dallas See More

Jim Hougan wrote on Facebook today: Stu Wexler observes: "The decisions re the government release are far worse than the media is recognizing. Researchers Rex Bradford and Bill Simpich, among others, point out that the 2800 files released are NOT from the 3000+ files that have been withheld in full for decades and that we were led to believe would be released. Only 52 files that had previously never been seen were released, meaning there are still a few thousand withheld. The 2800 pages were mostly more complete (free of redactions) versions of files we have already seen. There are still some 30,000 documents that fall into that category-- need to have redactions removed-- and have yet to be released in more complete form. In sum, a large percentage of material was not provided to the public as the 1992 law proscribed."

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today: The Day After. One day after the CIA blocked the full release of JFK documents, in defiance of the law, it's more clear than ever who's running the Trump administration. Your lawful right as an American citizen to your own history has been "denied in full," to use the bureaucratic language of the spy agency that tells the president of the United States what he can and cannot do. Trump's tweeted explanation for why he caved to CIA pressure said it all: "I have no choice — today — but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our nation’s security.” Wow...."I HAVE NO CHOICE." Ponder that one for a moment. The president of the United States has no choice when the CIA makes its will known to him. Trump still insists that after six months -- or maybe another 25 years -- the American people will be granted full "transparency." But Roger Stone (pictured immediately below), the Trump advisor who's been courageously pushing for full release of the Kennedy records, has been around the block in Washington too long to have much faith in this: “If the data dump that the National Archives did in July of a small amount of JFK-related material is any indication, the fallback of the intelligence agencies appears to be redact and withhold as much of this information as possible,” Stone stated yesterday. “They’ll use the broad rubric of national security. If the censorship is so great to make the president’s order meaningless, it’ll get litigated in the courts.” When it came to this defining moment in American history -- over whether we are a closed or open society -- it was the CIA's authoritarian director Mike Pompeo (pictured below), not Stone, who prevailed in the Oval Office. What exactly is the CIA still hiding by blocking the full release of these papers? Here's a partial list: 1. The travel records of key CIA suspects in the the Kennedy assassination, including William Harvey, Howard Hunt and David Morales. Were they in Dallas shortly before or on Nov. 22, 1963, as evidence suggests? 2. Did Allen Dulles -- the embittered former CIA director fired by JFK -- go to the top-secret CIA facility in northern Virginia known as "The Farm on Nov. 22, 1963, as his own calendar indicates? Why was he there -- despite having been pushed out of the CIA two years earlier? With whom did he meet and speak with on the phone? 3. A tape of the William Harvey interview conducted by the Church Committee behind closed doors on 4/10/75 -- long withheld by the CIA. By the mid-'70s, Harvey -- a Kennedy-hater who ran the CIA's assassination program -- suspected that he was being thrown to the wolves by the agency to which he'd devoted his life. He might very well have had some interesting things to say about his former colleagues. 4. A 338-page file on J. Walton Moore, the head of the CIA office in Dallas at the time of the assassination. Moore assigned George de Mohrenschildt -- a Russian speaking, globe-trotting oilman and CIA asset -- to babysit Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. This file is certain to add to the overwhelming evidence that "the fingerprints of U.S. intelligence were all over Oswald," as Sen. Richard Schweiker of the Church Committee famously said. 5. An 18-page dossier on Gordon McClendon, a Dallas businessman who conferred with Jack Ruby just before he shot Oswald. McClendon was a CIA-connected media entrepreneur who ran a right-wing radio network in the Southwest. As Ruby was arrested, he shouted out for McClendon. 6. Withheld -- or destroyed: Oswald's "201" file compiled by the CIA's Office of Security, presided over by the ghostly James Jesus Angleton. According to Judge John Tunheim, former head of the Assassination Records Review Board, "I have no doubt Angleton destroyed (JFK) files," when he took control of the CIA's internal investigation of the assassination. Despite any agency purging and tampering that has occurred over the years, don't believe the "experts" who are telling us there's nothing in these JFK files of any significance. There's a reason that the CIA is still hiding this material...because it points directly at the agency itself in the killing of President John F. Kennedy and the coverup.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/cnn-legal-analyst-jeff-toobin-calls-backtrack-on-jfk-files-shameful-theyve-had-decades-to-deal-with-this/

Among the excuses being pushed: https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/ex-cia-officer-explains-why-trump-is-likely-holding-back-the-jfk-files/

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today: The New York Times continues its coverup of the Kennedy assassination today, with yet another appallingly slanted article on today's release of JFK documents. Among the four experts it cites are two professional lone-nut propagandists, Max Holland (winner of a CIA award for his "scholarship" -- seriously) and Gerald "Case Closed" Posner). Then there's good old Michael Beschloss, a benign historian who prefers not to open America's darkest doors. The Times quotes only one more open-minded expert, Jefferson Morley, who has been fighting for years to get the government to release these documents. To get some true perspective on this document dump and the CIA's longtime role in the Kennedy coverup, read this memo by lawyer-investigator Dan Hardway -- a man who knows of what he speaks. As a young staff researcher for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Hardway was tasked with exploring possible links between the CIA and the Kennedy assassination. Hardway, a Cornell University Law School student at the time, was quickly given an education in how power really works in Washington. At one point, while committee members and staff were grilling David Atlee Phillips -- the CIA counterintelligence official who emerged as a key suspect in the Congressional investigation -- Phillips simply got up and walked out of the hearing room. Which telles you everything you need to know about the CIA's high regard for the law and the democratic process. (Phillips is pictured here, with his hero, CIA director Allen Dulles.) Here's Dan Hardway's take on the JFK document dump -- well worth reading: WHAT WERE THEY HIDDING AND WHAT SHOULD WE LOOK FOR? By Dan L. Hardway © October 26, 2017 As we go into the hysteria of a massive JFK document dump, there is one remarkably surviving document that has already been released that we should keep in mind – especially when reading news coverage of the documents scheduled for release today. On April 1, 1967, the Head of the Covert Action Staff of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sent a dispatch to many of the CIA stations and bases around the world.i That the document survived may be remarkable as it is clearly marked as “Destroy when no longer needed.” Or, then again, maybe it is not remarkable that it has not been destroyed because the government and intelligence community’s efforts to silence those who question the official story about John Kennedy’s murder has never succeeded and, hence, the dispatch remains needful from their viewpoint. The dispatch lays out a plan for defending the lone nut theory first advanced as the major theme of the government cover-up of the assassination investigation. The dispatch labels people who question the lone nut theory as “conspiracy theorists”. It plainly states the purpose of the dispatch “is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists…. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.” It goes on to suggest that critics be countered by advancing arguments such as they have produced no new evidence, that they overvalue some evidence while ignoring other evidence, that large scale conspiracies are “impossible to conceal in the United States,” that Oswald would not have been any “sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator”, and by pointing out the comprehensive work of the Warren Commission which was composed of men “chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence.” Many of the claims in the dispatch are ludicrous in hindsight, but are still parroted by mainstream media sources. We’ve seen them trotted out by lone nut theory defenders every time there has been a major breakthrough in the assassination investigation. As I’ll discuss below, we are already seeing some of these “plays” (as the dispatch calls them) already before the JFK document release and I suspect we’ll see a lot more of them in the coming days. Let’s start by looking at the possible validity of the plays. At this point in time, fifty-four years after the assassination and fifty-three years after the publication of the Warren Report, there are researchers, analysts, historians, attorneys and many others who have been researching this case for most of that time. Many of them do not advance “theories” about what happened, but rather try to find and analyze the facts that have been hidden for so long and ask questions about what they mean. They certainly are not wedded to theories that were adopted before the evidence was in. And let’s think about that for a moment. The cover-up of the assassination began on Air Force One as it flew back to D.C. from Dallas. The seeds are there in the released transcripts of Lyndon Johnson’s telephone calls. If the standard is waiting to see all the evidence, then the Warren Commission is totally discredited as it has now been shown beyond any reasonable argument or doubt that not only did they not have all the evidence in before issuing their report, the very investigating agencies upon whom they relied actively conspire to keep evidence from them – just as they have, and still do, actively conspired to keep the evidence from the American people. Lone nut theorists appear to be the ones wedded to the theory adopted before the evidence is in and doing all they can to spin the evidence as it comes out to try to shore up support for their theories. To try to argue that the Warren Commission members, its supporters since, and those covering up the evidence and resisting release of documentation, were not politically or financially interested in the cover-up should be accepted as facially absurd at this point. Indeed, even in 1967, the CIA dispatch openly admits to such interest, pointing out that opinion polls showing that more than half of the public was questioning the Warren Commission’s lone nut theory reflects a “trend of opinion [that] is a matter of concern to the U.S. Government, including our organization.” Questioning the rectitude and wisdom of the members of the Warren Commission would “tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.” An “increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited”ii could implicate him. Such concerns “affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government.”iii The Chief of Covert Action then acknowledges the Agency’s own interest: “Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation.” Indeed, they also covered-up information, as they have now admitted.iv The Agency’s concern, one that continues to this day, is plainly stated: the conspiracy theories expose them to “suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us.” The CIA’s main personal, if you will, stake in covering up and countering criticism has always been to deflect any possible focus on their relationship to the purported lone-nut assassin. Hasty and inaccurate in their research? How many documents are about to be released that have never been seen? And who is it that is sure of their theory? What can we say now about critics who for over fifty years have called for the release of all the information so that the American people can see and judge for themselves? Arguing that there is no new evidence is like standing in front of a camel and insisting it is a horse. New evidence has dribbled out now over the decades, in small manageable doses that can be dismissed as disconnected by the lone-nut theorists. And the blatant hubris of the argument is astounding. These are people who can suppress the evidence and taunt you because you don’t have it! It’s like prosecuting attorneys in criminal cases who refuse to reveal exculpatory evidence while simultaneously shifting the burden of proof to the accused. And as for the weighing all the evidence argument, how do you expect that to go if you control the evidence and only let the evidence out that supports your theory? Convenient. And if someone else does come up with a fact that contradicts your lone-nut theory, you can always deny it even though you know your suppressed evidence supports it. No wonder there has been such resistance by the Agency to full disclosure. Conspiracy theories can’t be hidden in America? Really? That’s why J. Edgar Hoover was able to do all that he did to undermine American civil liberties for fifty years without exposure that wouldn’t have even come then had not there been a break-in at a small FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania.v MKULTRA wasn’t as successful. It was only covered up for 25 years or so, as was the CIA programs to save and use ex-Nazi scientists and intelligence officers after the Second World War. Actually, all that needs to be said in rebuttal is that for 50 years the CIA and our government vehemently denied that there was a conspiracy to keep information from the Warren Commission. It is a prime tenet and support of the lone-nut theorists. In spite of the denials, finally, three years ago, the Agency in their internal secret magazine, in an article written by their official historian, admitted there was such a conspiracy, although they called it benign vi. We’ll return to this in a bit. Next, we have a point I will concede: Oswald as a co-conspirator. I agree, he’s hardly one that a rational person might choose. But, is he one a rational person might choose as a patsy? -- an entirely different question. Remember, that being a patsy was Oswald’s claim in one of the few brief encounters he had with the press. That claim would have been, presumably, a major theme developed by competent defense lawyers had he lived long enough to be tried. But the lone-nut theorists dismiss that possibility out of hand. Nothing to see here, folks, just move on. There was no investigation of this in the hasty Warren Commission investigation that led to the establishment of the lone-nut theory. As far as the Warren Commission membership goes, I will concede their then-prominence, but I have to wonder, in light of the evidence that has come in since, about their integrity and experience as support for the integrity of their work. Allen Dulles was the head of the CIA fired by President Kennedy. His collusion with the CIA in the pendency of the Warren Commission is shown in documents that have been released in the last few years. He passed out a book to Commission members at their first meeting taking the position that American assassins are always lone-nuts. Earl Warren was coerced into serving against his will by Lyndon Johnson and the supposed threat of nuclear war. Gerald Ford was in J. Edgar Hoover’s pocket. John J. McCloy was steeped in the intelligence community and was almost singlehandedly responsible for the end of prosecution of Nazi war criminals and the early release of those who had already been convicted when he became the High Commissioner for post-war Germany. Richard Russell, Jr., and Hale Boggs both privately rejected the Warren Commission’s lone nut theory, as did Lyndon Johnson, Robert F. Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy and many, many others. But the conspiracy of silence took years to break, and when broken, the revelations came out piecemeal and were dismissed at the time as insignificant, old news – just conspiracy theorists. And, speaking of that title, “conspiracy theorist”, is designed to be pejorative. If you can stick it to someone, then you don’t have to listen to what they say. Even if they are reporting new evidence, they’re just wacky conspiracy theorists. Just like those nuts who for years said J. Edgar Hoover was running a program to subvert dissidents illegally, or that the CIA was illegally surveilling U.S. citizens, or that the CIA had covered up information to keep it from other government entities that were investigating the Kennedy murder, right? Even if the person only reported facts and asked questions, they were (and are) labelled a “conspiracy theorist” solely for the purpose of undermining their credibility and lessening any impact they might have on public opinion. And when it comes to light that the answer to the question they raised, “is it possible there was a conspiracy?’ is, “Not only is it possible, there was indeed a conspiracy,” then even a blind bird occasionally finds a worm. And the cover-up artists say this without shame even though they have known about the conspiracy from the get-go. The next stage is to come up with a new spin such as, the cover-up was “benign”, or shifting suspicion where they want it to go. What, exactly, was covered up in other words. As noted by Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor at Florida State University, the CIA in 1967 began a campaign to “popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make a conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility.” He notes that the campaign, “must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives in all time.”vii He summarizes why the label has been used as a sword by those who resist the truth: “[T]he conspiracy-theory label, as it is applied in public discourse, does not disparage conspiratorial thinking or analysis in general, even though this is what the term suggests. Rather the broad-brush ‘conspiracy theory’ disparages inquiry and questioning that challenge official accounts of troubling political events in which public officials themselves may have had a hand. A conspiracy theory directs suspicion at officials who benefit from political crimes and tragedies. The theories are considered dangerous not because they are obviously false, but because, viewed objectively and without deference to U.S. political officials and institutions, they are often quite plausible.”viii So, the first thing to remember going into the next few days is to stop when you see the label and ask, “Why is the writer of this story disparaging this idea? Who is he trying to deflect suspicion from? Why is he trying to direct my suspicion elsewhere? Can I reject the label and recover an objective view what this labeled individual has to say?” Then do your best to find out what the idea being attacked really is rather than just rejecting it out of hand because of the labelling. Remember, the term “conspiracy theory” gained prominence as a result of a CIA led propaganda initiative specifically addressed at protecting their own interests. We see a blatant example of this dismissive labelling in CNN’s coverage of the upcoming document release. Jeremy Diamond writes, “A decision to withhold even a sliver of the documents could give conspiracy theorists more fodder to propel their claims.”ix So, what you are supposed to take away is that if anyone raises any questions about documents being withheld after the release date, they have to be a “conspiracy theorist” who isn’t worthy of your time or attention. Consider, what is there to hide at this point? If something is not released, why is it illegitimate to ask why, especially in view of our government’s relationship with the truth, or lack thereof, over the past six decades? What purpose is served by Mr. Diamond’s advance labelling? The appeal to authority is also used in battling “conspiracy theories.” It is seen in the CIA dispatch’s appeal to the apparent authority of the Warren Commission created by the then-reputations of its members and the superficially extensive investigation. This technique appears again in Mr. Diamond’s article: “Historians who have closely studied the Kennedy assassination have said they do not expect the documents to … contradict the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for killing Kennedy.”x Really, what historians? Why are none named. Why does he not give any consideration to people such as Dr. David R. Wrone, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and Dr. John Newman, an adjunct professor of history at James Madison University, whose lifetime study of the subject has led them to the conclusion that Oswald could not have been solely responsible?xi I haven’t spoken to them but I would venture to guess that neither Dr. Wrone nor Dr. Newman expect the documents to support Mr. Diamond’s lone-nut theory. Then we have Phil Shenon’s return to the fray in The Guardian this morning.xii Even in the title of his article, “Files will shed light on a JFK shooting conspiracy – but not the one you think”, Mr. Shenon starts to try to divert attention in the direction he wants it to go. He states plainly what he doesn’t want you to consider: first, a second assassin in Dealey Plaza even though his assertion that “most credible” evidence supports the lone-nut theory is patently not true.xiii Second, about a mafia plot to kill Oswald he asks “What half-way competent Mob boss would choose a delusional blabbermouth like Ruby…?” echoing the CIA dispatch’s question about what rational person would ever choose Oswald as a coconspirator? Again, as with the CIA’s question, Shenon’s borrowed technique avoids the important questions and shuts off the possibility of objective investigation and consideration of other alternatives. It’s a form of straw-man argument, but more slanderous and pernicious – you must be crazy if you don’t accept what I say. For example, what about the possibility that Ruby was called on as an emergency stop gap measure only after an initial plan to dispose of the patsy failed? I’m not saying that is what happened, but I am asking why it should be crazy, then or now, to consider the possibility and investigate it? Third, “a sprawling coup d’état involving everyone from President Johnson” on down the chain of command. I, too, find that less credible than most. But, then again, we have to consider that the evidence is now pretty much indisputable that President Johnson led the cover-up conspiracy and that his leadership and the conspiracy to cover-up anything that didn’t support the loan nut theory began immediately after the assassination. I have to ask, “Doesn’t that raise questions in your mind that merit investigation and, if possible, answers?” Why should we accept Mr. Shenon’s belittling dismissal of any questioning or review to see what’s actually in the evidence before we dismiss it? So, having told you what not to look for because even raising the questions can undermine proper deference to U.S. officials and institutions, he gives us the concession that we are now believed. The CIA has admitted they participated in a benign cover-up of information during the Warren Commission investigation.xiv Mr. Shenon acknowledges that the evidence is indisputable that both the CIA and the FBI had, at least, had Oswald under “aggressive surveillance in the months before the assassination.”xv Mr. Shenon then advances the spin that the CIA and FBI embarrassment over not taking action to better protect the president in Dallas in light of what they knew is the reason for the benign cover-up: “ mmediately after the assassination, panicked officials at both the CIA and FBI tried, desperately, to cover up evidence of the extent of their knowledge of Oswald, fearing their bungling of the intelligence about JFK’s assassin might be exposed – and that they would be blamed for the president’s murder.” Yes sir, that certainly explains why the cover-up began immediately on Air Force One on the way back to D.C. on November 22, 1963. As ridiculous as that idea is, it’s even more ridiculous to think that this embarrassment of two agencies would lead the whole government – from the president on down -- not just to cover up then, but to continue the cover-up and resist disclosure for more than fifty years of most of the documentary evidence, not to mention the massive destruction of evidence that has taken place. When an offered concession is as implausible as this, what is the questions that the concede is trying to avoid being asked? Could there have been other motivations for such a cover-up? I am glad you asked. Remember, in the 1967 dispatch the CIA acknowledged their basis of concern and, I believe, their motivation for participating in, if not leading, the cover-up of information for all these years. Not just hiding information from the Warren Commission, but continuing to hide it and resist its disclosure even up to the present. They acknowledged that the main CIA concern was that conspiracy theories might link them to the use of Oswald in intelligence operations. This concern is still found in CIA historian David Robarge’s article admitting CIA’s, or at least, Director McCone’s, participation in a conspiracy to hid information from the Warren Commission. The article talks about the anti-Castro plots and the Nosenko information that was not shared with the Commission.xvi This was used as an opportunity by Mr. Shenon to revive the kinda-like-maybe Castro did it theory, a theory was first raised on November 23rd in a Cuban exile publication sponsored and paid for by CIA .xvii But you have to read Mr. Robarge’s article carefully. It is always wise to carefully parse CIA pronouncements to see what they are actually saying. Mr. Robarge never specifically states that the CIA was mainly concerned in suppressing Kennedy murder information in preventing information about their attempts to murder Castro getting out. Here’s what he actually says about the motivation for the cover-up: “Moreover, the DCI shared the [Johnson] administration’s interest in avoiding disclosures about covert actions that would circumstantially implicate CIA in conspiracy theories, and possibly lead to calls for a tough US response against the perpetrators of the assassination. If the commission did not know to ask about covert operations against Cuba, he was not going to give them any suggestions where to look.”xviii Taken in toto, the statement would draw you to infer that the Castro assassination plots were what was being covered up. But if that is the case, why has the resistance to disclosure remained so fierce even after those plots were disclosed in 1975? And earlier in the article, Robarge clearly states that electronic intercepts had, within a few days, convinced the administration and the Agency that neither the USSR nor Cuba had any complicity in the assassination.xix So who might the “perpetrators” be against whom “calls for a tough US response“ might be made if they already knew that neither Soviet Russia nor Cuba were complicit? Notice the specific structure of Mr. Robarge’s statement: “avoiding disclosures about covert actions that would circumstantially implicate CIA in conspiracy theories.” I submit to you that this is the same motivation that existed in 1967 as stated by the CIA Chief of Covert Action in the April 1 dispatch: “Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us.”xx The CIA has told us what they were trying to hide. They have been trying to hide information that could implicate them as an organization participating in a conspiracy based on the fact that Oswald was not only under aggressive surveillance, but was also being utilized in some capacity by them in active intelligence operations shortly before the assassination. Those operations were directed at Cuba. The ones they didn’t want to be asked about, as Mr. Robarge states, were “covert operations against Cuba,” not covert Castro assassination plans. Please note in his article that Robarge is careful to specify the Castro assassination plots when he is talking about them. He is equally careful here to not reference them but, rather, more general “covert operations against Cuba.” We should be looking for information on Oswald’s involvement in those operations in this document release. They’ve told us where to look. Notes: xxi i Dispatch, Countering Criticism of the Warren Report, from Chief of CA Staff to Chiefs of Certain Stations and Bases, April 1, 1967, RIF 104-10009-10022. ii Que bono? Certainly not just Johnson, but the basic investigative question never seems to have even been raised, let alone considered, by the Warren Commission or the intelligence community in 1963-1964. iii “L’Etat, c’est moi.” The Agency’s concern was well-founded. The JFK murder cover-up was the beginning of the unravelling of government credibility in the United States and led directly to the growth of the secrecy culture that subsequently allowed the Vietnam war, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraqi WMD’s, etc., etc., etc. iv David Robarge, “DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” Studies in Intelligence, (Vol. 57, No. 3, 09/2013), Approved for Release and declassified, 09/29/2014, available at http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/…/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF. v See, e.g., Betty Medsger, The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret FBI, Knopf 2014. vi One CIA officer is also on record calling Operation Phoenix in Vietnam that tortured and killed myriads of Vietnamese civilians “benign”. vii Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America, University of Texas Press 2013, at p. 25. viii Id., at 41. Emphasis added. ix Jeremy Diamond, JFK Files: Trump teases release as deadline arrives, CNN, 26 Oct 2017, available at https://amp.cnn.com/…/jfk-assassination-files-classified-d…/ index.html. x Id. xi See, e.g., David R. Wrone, Two Assassinations: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, Lincoln Fellowship of Wisconsin, Meeting (37th: 1980 : Madison), Alfred Whital Stern Collection of Lincolniana (Library of Congress); http://aarclibrary.org/board-of-directors/ ; John Newman, Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK, Skyhouse 2008; John Newman, JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power, 2nd Ed., CreateSpace Independent Publishing 2016; John Newman, Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy Volume II, CreateSpace Independent Publishing 2017. xii Philip Shenon, Files will shed light on a JFK shooting conspiracy – but not the one your think, The Guardian, 26 Oct 2017, available at https://www.theguardian.com/…/john-f-kennedy-asssassination… national-archives xiii Most ear and eye witnesses on record from Dealey Plaza put a second shooter on the grassy knoll. Any fair analysis of the Zapruder film supports a finding of a shot from the front. The acoustics work of the HSCA showing a shooter on the knoll is also still supported by the best scientific evidence in spite of vigorous attempts to discredit it. xiv Technically, the Robarge article, see note iv above, did not concede CIA participation so much as to blame the JFK appointed Director of Central Intelligence, John McCone, of participating in a benign cover-up. See, Dan Hardway, A Cruel and Shocking Misinterpretation, 2015, available at http://aarclibrary.org/a-cruel-and-shockingmisinterpretati…/; Dan Hardway, Thank You, Phil Shenon, 2015, available at http://aarclibrary.org/thank-you-philshenon/ xv A more objective and careful review of CIA documentation shows that there is even more documentary evidence that the CIA was using Oswald as a witting or unwitting asset in at least one intelligence operation. See, e.g., John Newman, Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK, Skyhouse 2008; John Newman, Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy Volume II, CreateSpace Independent Publishing 2017; JFKFacts, Exclusive: JFK investigator on how CIA stonewalled Congress, http://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jf…/; Declaration of Dan L. Hardway, Morley v. CIA, CA # 03-02545-RJL, D.C.D.C. 11 May 2016, Docket No. 156. xvi Robarge above at n. 4. xvii See, Phil Shenon, Phil Shenon, “Yes, the CIA Director was Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-Up,” Politico, 10/06/2015, available at http://www.politico.com/…/jfk-assassination-john-mcconewarr… commission-cia-213197; Dan Hardway, Thank You, Phil Shenon, 2015, available at http://aarclibrary.org/thank-you-phil-shenon/ xviii Robarge, above, n. 4, at p. 9. xix The National Security Agency has never released such intercepts. xx Dispatch, above at n. 1. xxi This article is going out quickly and will be reviewed and supplemented in the future. One supplement will address the modus operandi of CIA cover-up and obstruction of investigations. Another will deal with what we know before the present document release about possible covert operations against Cuba that may have involved Oswald.

Must read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5022249/Trump-orders-NEW-JFK-coverup-delays-releasing-files.html

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 26, 2017 October 26, 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT: Temporary Certification for Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy The American public expects -- and deserves -- its Government to provide as much access as possible to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records (records) so that the people may finally be fully informed about all aspects of this pivotal event. Therefore, I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted. At the same time, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice --today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our Nation's security. To further address these concerns, I am also ordering agencies to re-review each and every one of those redactions over the next 180 days. At the end of that period, I will order the public disclosure of any information that the agencies cannot demonstrate meets the statutory standard for continued postponement of disclosure under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) (the "Act"). Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby certify that all information within records that agencies have proposed for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act must be temporarily withheld from full public disclosure until no later than April 26, 2018, to allow sufficient time to determine whether such information warrants continued postponement under the Act. This temporary withholding from full public disclosure is necessary to protect against harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure. I hereby direct all agencies that have proposed postponement of full disclosure to review the information subject to this certification and identify as much as possible that may be publicly disclosed without harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations. Any agency that seeks to request further postponement beyond this temporary certification shall adhere to the findings of the Act, which state, among other things, that "only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records." The need for continued protection can only have grown weaker with the passage of time since the Congress made this finding. Accordingly, each agency head should be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement of full disclosure of records. Any agency that seeks further postponement shall, no later than March 12, 2018, report to the Archivist of the United States (Archivist) on the specific information within particular records that meets the standard for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act. Thereafter, the Archivist shall recommend to me, no later than March 26, 2018, whether the specific information within particular records identified by agencies warrants continued withholding from public disclosure after April 26, 2018. The Archivist is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. DONALD J. TRUMP ### The White House - 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW · Washington DC 20500 · 202-456-1111

John Newman just reported: Adrew Krieg: Just got off White House call for reporters. News was embargoed until end of call, which began at 5:46. NARA will now release 2,800 documents in full. Trump pressured by authorities to withhold other documents for up to 180 days for further review on “national security” grounds. Agencies must make their objections by March 12, with new White House decision on remaining docs by April 26.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4773628/jfk-assassination-files-russia-denies-being-behind-presidents-murder-hours-before-donald-trump-has-even-released-classified-docs/

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today: Unbelievable...or all too believable. The CIA is still scrambling to undermine the full, non-redacted release of the JFK documents, as today's deadline expires. And even if the release finally happens, it won't be complete, as my attorney Dan Hardway and I are discovering. The CIA and State Department just informed us that our requests for records relating to William Harvey, head of the CIA assassination program against Castro and other leaders, have been "denied in full." This stonewalling is a blatant violation of the letter and spirit of the JFK Records Act, which called for the complete release of these relevant documents by TODAY.