Benjamin Cole

@James DiEugenio Does anyone in the EF-JFKA community have any idea of whether this proposed legislation would supersede the JFK Records Act and, also would trump the Biden Administration's Transparency Board? Jim--would Andrew Eiler or others have any inklings? This is an idea I have not seen discussed. New and more-powerful legislation to open up federal records. We have been talking about a new Chief Executive possibly opening up the JFK Records. But not more-powerful or explicit legislation.

I don't want yet another re-hash of the Russiagate follies. For me, the Carter episode is informative, as is Watergate. I have my views on what happened to Trump, and you have yours.

Jimmy Carter also lost an election. But Iran-Gate and Reaganauts, and intel state were active in Carter's loss. As was the WaPo...I lived in DC at the time. Carter was portrayed as a weakling, next to the strong Reagan. In my view, Carter was deposed. History does not necessarily repeat, but it does rhyme.

https://original.antiwar.com/patrick_eddington/2024/08/26/does-the-government-classification-system-need-reform/ Does the Government Classification System Need Reform? by Patrick Eddington Posted onAugust 27, 2024 (Editor's Note: Eddington mention JFK Records Act below. I appreciate the intention of this bill, but...all these open government laws need strict enforcement to work. We see how the JFK Records Act has been "gutted," in the words of Jeff Morley. So, would a future administration merely gut this bill in the same way? BTW, Eddington is a former CIA analyst. Eddington does not make clear if this bill would supersede the JFK Records Act, or overrule the Biden Administration's Transparency Board.) ---30--- For decades, presidents and their appointees have misused the classification system to conceal waste, fraud, abuse, and even criminal conduct, failing to properly manage classified federal records generally. That is why a new bipartisan effort to deal with this major executive branch misuse of power is both remarkable and welcome. The solution offered by Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Gary Peters (D-MI) and senior Senate Judiciary Committee and Select Intelligence Committee member John Cornyn (R-TX) is the Classification Reform for Transparency Act of 2024 (S. 4648). If enacted the bill would, for the first time in U.S. history, prohibit an executive branch official from misusing the federal government’s document classification system to hide various forms of misconduct. When I testified before Chairman Peters’ committee in March 2023, this was among my top three reform recommendations, and I’m deeply grateful Senators Peters and Cornyn have embraced the overarching idea because it’s been badly needed for literally decades. While there are literally dozens of examples to justify such a change in law, just two from the post-9/11 era should suffice to make the point. As I’ve testified elsewhere, in the days immediately following Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on America, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director General Michael Hayden authorized NSA personnel to intercept all communications between the U.S. and Afghanistan for a 30-day period. There was just one very big problem: under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Hayden had no lawful, unilateral authority to take such action. Hayden needed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and get approval for such electronic eavesdropping since it clearly implicated the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. Instead, he ordered the surveillance anyway and used the classification system to keep his decision from becoming public – a tactic that worked for over four years until the New York Times exposed it in December 2005. That revelation sparked an over two-year battle to make Hayden’s illegal mass surveillance program nominally constitutional (at least in the view of federal courts), which is how we got the controversial and still serially-violated 2008 FISA Amendments Act. The second example involves Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. One of the most graphic and shocking items then-Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning shared with Assange and WikiLeaks was U.S. Army AH-64 Apache helicopter gunship video of the murder of Iraqi journalists working for Reuters. Army officials used the classification system to conceal that war crime, something that under the Peters-Cornyn bill would become a federal crime. It is beyond outrageous that those who exposed that war crime and its attempted cover up were the ones subjected to Department of Justice prosecution, not those who committed the war crime. There is, unfortunately, one important caveat about this seemingly ground-breaking legislative effort. The bill leaves the development of penalties for misusing the classification system in the hands of the very people who let such misuse slide for decades: senior Executive branch officials themselves. While Section 6 of the bill requires each executive branch agency or department to develop “remedial measures or administrative” penalties for misusing the classification system and requires audits to detect such misconduct, senior agency and department officials have a vested interest in minimizing such incidents because of the embarrassment and potential political fallout they would cause. As drafted, it doesn’t appear the bill would achieve the effect that Peters and Cornyn are seeking in this area. Should this bill actually proceed to mark up, it would be imperative for Section 6 to be revised to make misuse of the classification system at least a federal misdemeanor, if not a federal felony. Only the credible threat of prosecution for such misconduct will truly be an effective deterrent. The unelected bureaucrats and political appointees at the CIA, NSA, FBI and elsewhere in the federal intelligence and law enforcement community should have absolutely no say whatsoever in this matter. The bill would also put a 50-year limit on how long any document could be classified, requires federal employees to put in writing why they classified a particular document, and creates a new federal task force to try to come up with a more rational and manageable executive branch classification system to rapidly declassify the tens of millions of old and rapidly aging records at federal agencies and departments. As Peters noted in his press release on the bill, “We are facing an overwhelming backlog of hundreds of millions of pages awaiting declassification and experts telling us that 50 to 90 percent of classified materials could be made public without risk to our national security.” It will take separate action by Congress to mandate the declassification of such a volume of records. Fortunately, prior congressionally mandated declassification laws like the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act and the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act and the Japanese Imperial Government Disclosure Act provide successful models for achieving that goal. While it would have been preferable to see Peters and Cornyn include such a provision in their bill, it nonetheless represents a welcome initial step forward in reining in out-of-control executive branch abuse of the federal classification and records management system. It’s encouraging to see that despite the current national mood of pessimism and political rancor, there are still legislators in Washington trying to tackle big problems in a bipartisan way.

Thanks for posting.

There are valid reasons to suspect the intel-state deposed JFK, Nixon, Carter and Trump.

GJ-- Thanks for posting. I am not a Jeffrey Sachs fan, but in this video he is discussing the JFKA, which what the EF-JFKA is about. I would not have seen this if you did not post it, so it is appreciated.

100% agreed. I always enjoy your commentary especially when I disagree with you. Then, I might learn something. In this case, we agree, but there is always tomorrow.

Dupe copy

Dupe copy. Sorry.

Jim DiEugenio is probably best described as left wing (I hate these labels, but in general). Gil Jesus (who I do not know as much about) might be a right-winger. I care not in either case. Both are long-time JFKA scholars. They both are interested in discussing the JFK Records Act when it is in the news, and both want the records to be released. What politics? There is no politics here, except that interjected by others. None from Jim or Gil.

"Exactly right, Denny. This thread was started as a MAGA thread, by a Trump fan."--WN This is not the sort of comment a moderator should make. The thread was started by long-time JFKA researcher Gil Jesus. The embedded video features RFK2 discussing Pompeo, the CIA and the JFKA with Tucker Carlson. What is "MAGA" about his? People interested in the JFKA and the JFK Records Act come from all political backgrounds. At the present, the only traction in the media regarding the JFK Records Act is in what might be dubbed "right-wing" news outlets. So that is what gets posted by Gil Jesus today. I would be delighted if the recent CNN interview with Harris featured some discussion on the JFKA and JFK Records Act, and I would post that. That would not make me a "Kamanist" to be derided by a moderator. Besides all that, "MAGA" supporters, or Trump supporters, should be as well-received in the EF-JFKA as Harris supporters or "Kamanists." If you are leftie or rightie, Harris-ite or Trumper, I contend all are welcome here. CT'er and LN'er. Marxists and libertarian. If people you regard as "MAGA" or Trumpers are making a lot of contributions to the EF-JFKA...you should be thanking them for their efforts. I thank Gil Jesus for his contributions here and this thread. If Jesus votes for Harris or Trump, I don't care.

JB- Of course, you speak the truth. Many groups did want JFK removed from office, all the ones you mentioned, and the globalists of the day. But, the same could be said today, that the Deep State and globalists, powerful media allies, and many left-wing political groups loathed, detested and reviled the man whose name begins with a T. Moreover at the time of the T assassination attempt, it looked like Mr. T was headed towards election victory again. Does it follow the T assassination attempt ...was perped by conspirators, and not a lone nut? I happen to strongly suspect the JFKA resulted from a conspiracy (largely due to the timing of shots seen in the Z-film), and suspect likely the TAT was a lone-nut job. Just IMHO.

DJ- You are an extraordinary researcher. 1. All the same, the JFK Records Act is the law, and the Biden Administration is doing an illegal snuff job on the records. 2. We don't know what we don't know. There may be authentic and verifiable records being snuffed now, that would present a more-clear picture of the JFKA. 3. While many of us strongly suspect a JFKA conspiracy, the shape of the conspiracy is unclear. Perhaps the snuffed records would help a bit in that regard. I agree with you that many documents pertaining to the JFKA are dubious.

RO/PM: I am not comfortable with the proposition that McCone was out of the loop on what the CIA was doing, and ergo RFK/JFK were also. McCone was brought into the CIA by JFK in 1961, and his first job should have been to find out everything that was going on. He should have emphasized that there had to be 100% transparency to him in CIA ops. And JFK should have dictated that Job No. 1 to McCone. "We cannot be chief executives if there are secret ops we do not know about," JFK should have said. "Fire anyone who disagrees." It would be a dereliction of duty to do anything less. So...a story has grown up that Dulles was still running the CIA. Was he? I don't know, but I don't think so. The problem is compounded by the fact that records were not kept on CIA assassination jobs, by the CIA's own statements. I assume other ops were conducted off-the-books. But we don't know what we don't know. McCone was a smart guy, and quite the anti-communist, an activist, one reason he was close friends with RFK. It may be McCone was aware of everything the CIA was doing, and (unofficially) approved of it. His job would have been to keep RFK/JFK apprised of everything the CIA was doing. My reasoned guess is RFK was pretty much on top of CIA ops. I cannot tell you who perped the JFKA...so all this is just IMHO.

"Its amazing to me how this ends up getting political."---JD For some people, every conversation comes back to "MAGA". For others, every conversation comes back to "Zionists." I hope the illegal snuff job on the JFK Records Act becomes a major campaign issue. I tend to believe both major political parties...when they are describing the other major political party.

GJ- Thanks for your additional posts, and collegial commentary. Whether or not there was a plot against Trump, and that assassination attempt based on Trump's position on the JFK Records, that possibility has to be investigated thoroughly. I tend to think Crooks was a "nutjob"....but the inexplicably lax security is curious, as was the refusal to provide Trump with additional SS security. The switch to a new SS director, a Biden insider. The sudden death of Crooks. You never know.

GJ- Thanks for posting this timely video. I appreciate all your contributions to the EF-JFKA. IMHO, this is a disappointing Trump position, the "establishment of a commission" to open up the JFK Records. Why not, "I vow to unconditionally open up every record even remotely connected to the JFKA. It has been 60 years, and the risk to national defense is negligible." The same stance should be demanded of Harris, who btw, I think will win. Unfortunately, the legacy-establishment media has not even truly explained what has happened to the JFK Records, that is President Biden's Orwellian Transparency Board and his (intended and likely) permanent snuff job on the JFK Records. I don't think the JFK Records will become a campaign issue, as much as I would like that. Legacy-establishment media is not interested. Many in the EF-JFKA disagree with Tucker Carlson in general, on the issues. That is fine. I am 50/50 on the guy, and I do not follow his podcasts. But, jeez, it would be nice if someone, anyone, in the left-wing media-verse would make the JFK Records an issue. Can anyone name a prominent left-winger who has addressed the JFK Records issue as frequently and intelligently as Carlson? Or, at all?

Thanks for posting. An interesting version of the JFKA/Watergate miasma. My only comment is that I doubt the JFKA team was as large as 15 members, or even much more than three.

Most JFKA researchers have few illusions about Castro. It is true, that elements within America's left-wing have long valorized Castro and Che Guevara (see Guevara's image in tee-shirts even yet), and it used to be mostly left-wingers interested in the JFKA/RFK1A. As left-wingers, perhaps JFK researchers have somewhat sanitized the JFK record regarding Cuba and Castro. There is the uncomfortable feeling that JFK was talking nice to Castro while planning to execute him also. I recently learned that RFK and John McCone became relatively close friends after JFK appointed McCone the CIA director in 1961. There is little excuse for JFK not knowing what the CIA was up to. But fast forward to today's JFKA/RFK1A research community, and there is a lot more intellectual diversity among the researchers, and, of course, a lot more historical record to ponder.

Maybe some JFKA junkies have read this before... From this CIA document: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10213-10101.pdf (page 13 of tif file). "A CIA officer passed an assassination weapon to an Agency Cuban asset at a meeting in Paris on November 22 1963. The weapon was a ballpoint pen rigged as a hypodermic syringe. The CIA officer suggested that the Cuban asset load the syringe with Black Leaf 40. The evidence indicates the meeting was underway at the very moment President Kennedy was shot." ---30--- Egads. The once-secret report also states, "We cannot overemphasize the extent to which responsible Agency officers felt themselves subject to the Kennedy Administration's severe pressures to do something about Castro and his regime." (page 11 of tif file). ---30--- Of course, many Castro assassination plots were hatched during the Kennedy Administration, including some after the CMC. There seems to be debate about how much of these plots were known to JFK/RFK. RFK was evidently became close friends with CIA Director John McCone, who was appointed by JFK in 1961 to replace Dulles. So the Kennedys should have known what was going on. JFK himself in late 1962 vowed that the BoP brigade's flag would fly over a free Havana. That is, JFK vowed a regime-change op. I understand the Paris episode is only coincidental. But somehow Cuba always comes up in the JFKA.

DC- No political bashing from me! I welcome all points of views, from Trumpers to Harris'ers, from Marxists to libertarians, LN'ers to CT'ers. A forum is for exchanging views, not denigrating people with different views. I have watched Geoff Shepard on Mark Groubet's shows a few times, but I tend to get lost in the weeds of his presentations. Maybe because I watch late at night, or when doing work with my hands. My take, and I should do more research and give Shepard a more-fair hearing (Shepard has a formidable website), is that Shepard recognizes the weaponization of the Congressional hearing process in the Watergate episode. I am not sure Shepard contends that the national security-state was triggering partisan biases and efforts, in coordination with media, especially, of course, the WaPo. (Home to the dubious and possible intel-plant Bob Woodward). I do make this contention. All that said, I welcome Shepard's contributions to Watergate literature, and IMHO he deserves a respected seat at the table of Watergate storytellers. I should devote some time to figuring Shepard a little more. I trust the establishment version of Watergate about as much as I do the WC.

JB- Thanks for commenting. Gene Hackman was one of my fave actors, I do not know really why. But then I am a guy who likes Edward G. Robinson.

PS-- Thanks for commenting. Certainly, there are varying opinions on Watergate, as there are on the JFKA/RFK1A. We disagree. I would not call Hunt or McCord "Nixon's people." Hunt was sending sealed pouches by courier to the CIA, while working inside the Nixon WH. McCord, popularly depicted as a technician and building-security guy, actually had a very elevated career inside the CIA. James Hougan's book "Secret Agenda" is worth reading, even if you disagree. For fun, you could watch this, just posted by Mark Groubert. I do not agree with every last word of Groubert. or any other commentator. Groubert is fun to listen to, if you have a chore like sweeping a large porch, driving a car, etc., and need some background conversation.

RR- My take or guess, is-- 1. Nixon wanted the BoP files, aka the JFK Records. This is heavily documented. That is the third rail, from the CIA's, or intel-state viewpoint. 2. Elements within the intel establishment were unhappy with Nixon's and Kissinger's detente overtures to Moscow and Beijing. To the point of spying on the pair. This is also documented. 3. The intel state was easily able to leverage partisan bias and sentiments to weaponize a Congressional inquiry, following the curiously botched Watergate break-in, with every lead...well, leading back to the White House. Yet the entire Watergate crew was CIA, with the possible exception of Gordon Liddy. I always have to state, for those rabid rigid partisans among the EF-JFKA, that none of this makes Nixon an admirable guy. Nixon and Kissinger both concluded the VW was un-winnable nearly from Day One, but extended the gory catastrophe until after the 1972 election. Nixon left behind 200 million cluster-bombs in Laos alone, just one of 100 horrible acts. His administration was garden-variety corrupt in any number of events, such as the milk-price scandal. And who could forget Spiro Agnew? I am only saying that the intel-state will depose presidents that it does not like. Partisan politics is for chumps.