Morley's Miami Herald opinion piece 21 November 2021 republished by Yahoo News

[George Govus]

Joe Friday, I mean, Jefferson Morley's new opinion piece probes what it means when the CIA continues to defy the JFK Records Act.

Here's a bit of it. It's all good stuff. He covers the waterfront.

Quote

Friday nights are traditionally when the White House press office takes out the president’s smelliest garbage in hopes that the stench will pass by Monday morning. The announcement that the CIA and other federal agencies had delayed compliance with the 1992 JFK Records Act for the second time in four years was a story the White House understandably wanted to go away.
Smoking gun?
The delay struck me — and University of Texas Professor James Galbraith, among others — as a smoking gun in itself. The CIA’s slow-walking tactics are not quite definitive proof of a JFK conspiracy. They do, however, demonstrate that the CIA does not intend to obey a law concerning the assassination of a sitting American president.
The most plausible explanation of the CIA’s six-decade long history of deception, deceit and delay about assassination-related records is the desire to hide embarrassment or malfeasance. If nothing else, Biden’s order on the JFK files indicates that the CIA has a JFK problem: the clandestine service today cannot afford full disclosure about what happened in Dallas a long time ago.

 

[Denny Zartman]

Very good piece, thanks for sharing the link.

He says it best here, I think:

Quote

documents from ... 1963 are still kept secret on the grounds that their release would harm the national security of the United States in 2021.

That's an undeniable fact and, in my opinion, says volumes. I also was of the belief that there are no smoking guns in those files. I believed anything that could have been remotely considered a smoking gun was surely destroyed long ago or never committed to paper in the first place. But now I think there's simply no alternative to assuming that incriminating documents still exist in official files. I can think of no other plausible explanation.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

But now I think there's simply no alternative to assuming that incriminating documents still exist in official files. I can think of no other plausible explanation.

I can:

The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Some highlights for those who don't want to read the whole piece.

Mark Zaid quote:

"… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."

So, it is in the national security interest of the United States to honor agreements made with sources to keep their identity secret. And there are methods of intelligence gathering that they also want to shield. 

[George Govus]

11 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

So, it is in the national security interest of the United States to honor agreements made with sources to keep their identity secret. And there are methods of intelligence gathering that they also want to shield.

That would be all right and good, I suppose, W., if CIA, et al., including the executive, were following the law, in terms of there being a statement of reason for each item withheld, each item redacted.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

But now I think there's simply no alternative to assuming that incriminating documents still exist in official files.

Good thing the documents from the CIA are no longer in their hands. Otherwise they'd still be mopping up the loose ends.

 

[Richard Price]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Good thing the documents from the CIA are no longer in their hands.

Sandy, to quote one of my favorite movies:  "How do you know?".

From "Three Days of the Condor" - The last line by Cliff Robertson (CIA director) to Robert Redford (Condor) after he's told the director he gave his story to the NY Times.  How do you know they'll print it? You can take a walk. But how far if they don't print it?

In this case, how do you know they're not inside group now making the decisions and culling for sensitive info?  That would be similar to George Joannides and the HSCA wouldn't it?