The JFK Assassination Records: The Picture is getting clearer

[James DiEugenio]

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-assassination-records-the-picture-is-getting-clearer

This is an important article by our regular writer on the subject. 

Trump really screwed this up even more than anyone understood.

Not only did he bypass the law, he had someone make up things that are not in the law to delay it and slough it off on NARA.  

It is all on Biden now.

[W. Niederhut]

Excellent article.

Aside from the fact that Trump, obviously, failed to comply with the terms of the law, I have a question about Presidential discretion in refusing to release the JFK records.

My apologies if this issues has already been discussed here on the Education Forum.  I'm still a relative newcomer here.

Mark Adamczyk wrote;

"Specifically, President Trump was required to certify that 1) continued postponement was made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and 2) the identifiable harm was of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure. 

Here's my question.  Couldn't any POTUS indefinitely postpone the release of the JFK records on the grounds that their release would cause identifiable harm to the CIA by exposing the Agency's role in the assassination of JFK, and the cover up of the crime?

[Benjamin Cole]

Man, oh man. 

I am beginning to suspect there might actually "be something" in the remaining files.  I have generally assumed not much "hard stuff" would be put into written form, even contemporaneously, let alone after cleansing....

But if so, why the tenacity in not releasing the files?

Among Trump's many, many failings...or cave-ins. 

I still do not think the "smoking gun" is in the files. But perhaps there are enough dots, that when connected...

There is oceanic apathy regarding this issue in mainstream US media, from CNN to the NYT-Wapo crowd to Fox...although maybe Fox is showing signs of intellectual curiosity...

 

[Denny Zartman]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Couldn't any POTUS indefinitely postpone the release of the JFK records on the grounds that their release would cause identifiable harm to the CIA by exposing the Agency's role in the assassination of JFK, and the cover up of the crime?

I believe you are correct.

If there was going to be one president willing to embarrass the CIA and release it all, it would have been Trump. His unwillingness to upset the apple cart that he loathes so much says voulmes. I don't think Biden is going to do it either, nor will any other President. The cost vs. benefit just doesn't equal out for them any more.

[Denny Zartman]

On the plus side, I'd say at least we now know through process of elimination that it was indeed the CIA. Does anyone think they would keep these records secret indefinitely if they fingered Sam Giancana?

[James DiEugenio]

No Denny they would not.

But really, Trump had to specify just what the excuse was and how it applied to the document.  Not only did he not do that, but he passed it on to NARA.  Which is a complete alteration of the law, both the sprit and intent.

I don't think there will be a smoking gun, but it just bugs me when the president lets these guys get away with this crap.  It contributes to the whole mythos that the CIA and FBI are above the law.

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No Denny they would not.

But really, Trump had to specify just what the excuse was and how it applied to the document.  Not only did he not do that, but he passed it on to NARA.  Which is a complete alteration of the law, both the sprit and intent.

I don't think there will be a smoking gun, but it just bugs me when the president lets these guys get away with this crap.  It contributes to the whole mythos that the CIA and FBI are above the law.

They can't be protecting the sources, because they're all dead. They must be protecting the METHODS and that to me is disturbing.

[Benjamin Cole]

53 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

They can't be protecting the sources, because they're all dead. They must be protecting the METHODS and that to me is disturbing.

Well, maybe METHODS, but also perhaps greater clarity on who was LHO. If LHO was a CIA or military asset, even if sometimes unwitting and manipulated, that would disaster. 

A CIA asset murdered the President? 

If there is even one memo indicating LHO was being directed somehow...or one memo firmly indicating files have been cleansed regarding LHO...one memo indicating Antonio Veciana did in fact meet LHO and David Atlee Phillips...one memo indicating a false flag operation was planned on Nov. 22 in Dallas

 

[Ron Bulman]

I think the lines about the "evidence" for postponement was "approval by the CIA" pretty much says it all.  CIA approval of postponement is Not evidence.  It's more like the power to cover their asses. 

[James DiEugenio]

Key issue Ron.  See, what Trump wanted to do was turn this over to the NARA.  Why? Because in reality NARA does not declassify a document unless it has a terminal date on it.  If there is no such date, then its up to the originating agency as to when it can be declassified.

That is a complete transformation of the law.  And note that when NARA was going to do this back in 2017, since that was the last date according to the statute, Trump stopped them from  a complete declassification.

So here is my question: what happened to "draining the swamp"?

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Can someone please confirm my interpretation of this article:

The archivist raised concerns about document release. 

I translate that to mean the archivist was tasked with releasing unredacted documents. The archivist couldn't do that as they didn't hold the unredacted documents. At the date of release the archivist couldn't do their job so raised concerns. 

The article seems to show the 'concerns' in fact related to the CIA's failings. I had naively assumed the archivist held unredacted copies of evidence, and redacted copies were in the public domain, unless completely redacted. 

If I'm right, this must mean no one outside the CIA has seen unredacted documents. That means potential smoking guns. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

From my understanding, NARA has a record of all the documents the ARRB uncovered.

They were going to release all of them back in 2017.

Trump lost his nerve at the last minute.  So not all of them were released.

Now does NARA have all of them?  I don't know. But they do have a record of them.

But something curious about the article is that the number of withheld or redacted documents has gone up from 17,000 to 31,000.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Judge Tunheim gave the impression he knew what was in the unreleased documents and that there was no smoking gun. I now doubt he saw unredacted documents.

[Pamela Brown]

5 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Judge Tunheim gave the impression he knew what was in the unreleased documents and that there was no smoking gun. I now doubt he saw unredacted documents.

Sounds like something the WC would say...

[Benjamin Cole]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But something curious about the article is that the number of withheld or redacted documents has gone up from 17,000 to 31,000.

It would be nice if there was just one straight line anywhere in the entire JFKA story.

17,000? 31,000?