Lawrence Schnapf

@W. Niederhut i dont know if people are denying the withholding of JFK records is a bipartisan effort. After the ARRB went out of business, the remaining postponed records were to undergo "periodic review" until 2017. Virtually nothing was done under Bush and Obama first term. A modest number of records were released around the 50th anniversary. The 2017 deadline occured during Trump's administration. He unlawfully postponed twice and while disappointed, we really werent surprised given his personality. When he said he would release the records In October 2017, he had no idea that a memo was already being circulated to postpone their release. The great negotiator was played by his own security advisors. Trump's postponement dated came up under Biden's watch. He has postponed the records three times. we expected much more from Biden and thus are deeply disappointed. To be fair to Biden, though, more records have been released even in redacted form than were disclosed under Trump. Biden has a bust in his office of one of the bravest men in our country's history-RFK- who took on the mafia knowing the risks and likely died because of his efforts. But Biden has fallen well short of RFK. Instead, he has taken a knee to the outrageous claims of the national security bureaurcacy that the remaining records pose such a risk to national security that they cannot be released. So i agree with you this is a bipartisan problem. But from a pure legal standpoint, we could not sue Trump b/c he is no longer president. The court could not order him to do anything since he no longer has the power to release the records or order new searches. So we had no recourse but to sue Biden to try to stop this maddness.

@John Cotter I went to a therapist for decades. I was very fortunate I had the luxury to afford it. I learned incredible insights about myself, human behavior and people skills. I didnt "need" to go. It was an investment in myself so i could be the best version of myself. So it is not despicable for @W. Niederhut to suggest RFK Jr or any of his siblings could have benefitted from therapy. -IMHO

And what would be the purpose of sending such a fake message?

@W. Niederhut havent been online much today. are you saying that RFK has not criticized Jan. 6th attack?

Both President Trump and Biden have failed to comply with the JFK Act. and now CNN picks up the PR release from NARA that the work under the JFK Act is done. Trump punted on the JFK Act but Biden is trying to kill it.

I sent an email blast to approximately 60 reporters Friday night. I got one bite from ABC radio (after midnight show) and the National Inquirer

just a couple of right-of-center pieces basically parrotting the NARA press release: National Archives Quietly Releases Trove of JFK Assassination Records (resistthemainstream.com) National Archives releases additional JFK assassination records per Biden memorandum

yep. they're implementing the "Lessons Learned"memo. I do think, though, that we got a larger document dump in June b/c of the lawsuit.

that will be my ask of him....

Just wanted to clairfy my prior comments that Biden is saying he (and presumably future presidents) have no further obligations under the JFK Act. We are not conceding or accepting that the Act has been terminated. He is delegating future disclosures to the national security bureaucracy- the same folks whose obstruction and delays triggered the need for the statute in the first place!!

@James DiEugenio I had several emails with Tunhem before the holiday about related matters but did not want to ruin his holiday with the news of the June 30th executive order. I will email him tomorrow along with RFK Jr with whom I have also been in contact about the upcoming oral argument.

@W. Niederhut thanks for your reply clarifying to me that u have compassion for RFK Jr. are u saying that RFK Jr has declined to criticize Trump when asked about the events u mentioned or are u saying ur disappointed that he has not voluntarily made those statements?

@James DiEugenio I was going to ask u to request ur readers to contact the WH the express their outrage and to let him know his is going to pay a poltical price for cowering to the absurd claims of national security so glad ur doing this!!!

@W. Niederhut Trump's executive orders clearly violated the JFK Act- IMHO. i cobbled together several letters signed by lawyers, historians, researchers and open government groups to senate and house leadership asking for oversight hearings on the failure of the executive branch to comply with the Act. These efforts fell onto deaf ears. But Trump is no longer president so it makes no sense to direct our ire towards him. It is outrageous the BIDEN has continued this unlawful conduct. He is cowering to the absurd claims of the intelligence community that these 60 year old records not only present identifiable harm to national security but that the harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest. On this issue, he is no better than Trump. While I'm not a professional therapist, I personally know RFK Jr from our mutual background. I have always felt he labored under some continuing emotional impact from the way his uncle and father were murdered. Who wouldn't? But it is for that reason that I have lots of compassion for him. Indeed, given your training, I have been surprised at the seemingly vehemence you exhibit towards him. I'm sure you are a highly skilled and compassionate professional so it appears to me that your commentary is animated by your political views and not by your professionalism.

@W. Niederhut the practice of signing statements began in earnest with President Carter though Reagan expanded it under the guidance Ed Meese. Bush continued this practice and it has been followed to varying degrees by subsequent presidents. so this administrative animal has lots of mothers including your tar baby Barr.

Morley on the Friday night massacre of the JFK Act: https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/late-on-a-friday-night-biden-guts?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=315632&post_id=132366781&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email

@W. Niederhut Barr is a one of number of lawyers who worked for DOJ during the Reagan and Bush years who pushed for the robist executive power and the unitary executive theory. Others include now Chief Justice Robers and associate justice Alito. Writing memos that support policies sought by the president is one way that lawyers get to be recognized and be placed on lists for future judicial posts. Associate Justice Kagan was wrote a law review article about presidential power that no doubt got the attention of the Clinton adminsitration. In much the say way, the young staff attorneys of the Warren Commission also got rewarded for their work through judicial appointments (Griffin), anoited for political office (Spector), selection to be head of agencies (Coleman) or high profile commissions (Belin for Rockefeller Commission)-just a few examples.

@Jonathan Cohen Have you read any of Geoff Shepard's books? He was a counsel in the Nixon White House. The historical narrative is incomplete. I believe Watergate and the JFK assassination had common links. Nixon threatened to rip the scab off the "Bay of Pigs" thing which Haldeman said was Nixon code for the JFK assassination. Once Ford became Veep, Nixon became expendble. They knew Ford would fight to keep the secrets

@Benjamin Cole I've starting sending individual emails to reporters and media types-so far about 50- about this development. this is classic DC- take action friday afternoon before a holiday while the media is more asleep than usual at the wheel-- or stuck in traffic. The idea that disclosing the names of FBI informants or CIA sources would create a substantial risk of harm to them 60 years is later is absurd. The agencies have a policy of not releasing their names until they have passed. this robs researchers of the ability to interview them and learn what they knew, saw or heard in 1963. The individuals are now in the their 80s and even 90s. Any further delays risk having their memories and stories lost to history forever. This is why we are seeking injunctive relief. History will be irreperably harmed if these people cannot be interviewed. In documents I obtained as part of my NARA FOIA lawsuit, the NARA leadership ridiculed this concern during the 2017 and 2018 saying: “As the information is concerning events more than 50 years old, it is difficult to imagine circumstances under which an individual could be harmed by the release of their name in a file in the JFK Collection." NARA also wrote that “The standard set by the JFK Act and the Assassination Records Review Board during their deliberations is a high one: there has to be “clear and convincing evidence” of a “substantial risk of harm” and recommended denial of postponement requests

Yes- Reagan and Bush made use of signing statements to put their spin on legislation they were signing into law and a last bite at the apple. These statements have dubious legal authority. In addition, section 11 of the JFK Act says it supercedes any other law or court decision that would operate to delay release of information that could be disclosed under the Act

President Biden issued an executive order today that basically states the JFK Assassination Records Act has come to an end! Specifically, he states in section 1 “With my final certification made in this memorandum -– the last required under the Act – and definitive plans for future disclosures, my Administration is fulfilling the promise of transparency to the American people…. In section 2(b) he says “On May 1, 2023, the Acting Archivist informed me that the review process was complete and recommended that I postpone the public release of certain redacted information in the records certified for temporary postponement of public release in the December 2022 Memorandum. In section 3, he states: “I hereby certify, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act, that continued postponement of public disclosure of that information is necessary to protect against identifiable harms to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, and the conduct of foreign relations that are of such gravity that they outweigh the public interest in disclosure. All information within these records that has been proposed for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act shall accordingly be withheld from public disclosure. Future release of the information in these records shall occur in a manner consistent with the Transparency Plans described in section 5 of this memorandum.” In section 5, he states: “On May 1, 2023, the Acting Archivist recommended continued use of agencies’ Transparency Plans to release information covered by the Act. Therefore, I direct the NDC to continue to use the Transparency Plans to conduct future reviews of any information covered by the Act that has been postponed from public disclosure. The Transparency Plans will ensure that the public will have access to the maximum amount of information while continuing to protect against identifiable harms to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, and the conduct of foreign relations under the standards of the Act.” The Mary Farrell Foundation has asserted in its lawsuit that the Transparency PLans fail to comply with the JFK Act. Oral argument is scheduled for July 13th.

must have been fun to practice law in those days before computers, internet, etc. When I tell my students how that i used to have to photocopy pages from case books and scotch tape the page excerpts onto brief that I wrote by hand on legal pad they look at me like i have three heads....

I watched it! I have read and listened to all his presentations and books.

I had been impressed with Geoff Shepard's analysis. his lack of response to you is incredibly disappointing.

@Douglas Caddy I'm really surprised. seems he would have been interested in what you had.