Biden as Senile Weakling on JFK Records Act

[Benjamin Cole]

Somehow, in the coverage of the JFK Records Act, President Joe Biden and CIA Director William Burns are getting 100% passes.

My understanding of the law is the President Biden has authority to order the release of the JFK Records in full. I gather he is supposed to consider the counsel of the CIA director and others, but he is not beholden to the director.

It is Biden's call.

Sec. 2.  Background.  (a)  The Act permits the continued postponement of disclosure of information in records concerning President Kennedy’s assassination only when postponement remains necessary to protect against an identifiable 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 disclosure. 

 

Here is what President Biden said on Dec. 15:

"Temporary continued postponement of public disclosure of such information is necessary to protect against an identifiable 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 disclosure."

This laughable on the face of it. No one could believe there could be identifiable harm to bona fide national security or other national interests in the total release of JFK Records, and other related records 

This leaves two conclusions:

1. Biden is a senile weakling, and actually believes national security would be materially harmed by the release of records, as related to him by CIA Director Burns...or....

2. Biden is deeply corrupt, and knowledgable about the true relations between the CIA and LHO, and has agreed to hide the truth again. 

Is there a third take? Would would that third take be? 

[James DiEugenio]

I agree that Biden has been really a disappointment on this. 

In every way.

As Jeff Morley had pointed out, and as I tried to on Watters, many of these documents are being released with small and large redactions.

This was not supposed to be the case now.

So when the press says, well, 12, 000 pages released, they don't say in still redacted form.

This is simply breaking the law.  This was bad enough under Trump.  But and irish American Democrat with RFK's bust in th eoval office and JFK's portrait in his study?

[Benjamin Cole]

38 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree that Biden has been really a disappointment on this. 

In every way.

As Jeff Morley had pointed out, and as I tried to on Watters, many of these documents are being released with small and large redactions.

This was not supposed to be the case now.

So when the press says, well, 12, 000 pages released, they don't say in still redacted form.

This is simply breaking the law.  This was bad enough under Trump.  But and irish American Democrat with RFK's bust in th eoval office and JFK's portrait in his study?

The M$M reporting, if and when it evens cares, blames the lack of JFK Records Act disclosure on "the government." 

It is not "the government" that is responsible for non-disclosure in this case. 

It was specifically President Trump four years ago, and specifically President Biden now. 

Perhaps there is a third reason for non-disclosure. beyond senility or corruption: Biden is simply being (politely) blackmailed. Same thing might have happened to Trump. 

 

 

[Tom Gram]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree that Biden has been really a disappointment on this. 

In every way.

As Jeff Morley had pointed out, and as I tried to on Watters, many of these documents are being released with small and large redactions.

This was not supposed to be the case now.

So when the press says, well, 12, 000 pages released, they don't say in still redacted form.

This is simply breaking the law.  This was bad enough under Trump.  But and irish American Democrat with RFK's bust in th eoval office and JFK's portrait in his study?

Seriously. When I heard 12,000 pages were released I thought we might actually get some valuable new info out of this.

Then I realized that “released” in this case means that maybe one word was unredacted in a document missing entire pages, and in some documents nothing was changed at all. 

[Ken Davies]

This is neither following the spirit nor the letter of the law. There is no valid justification.

 Would the president in 1925 have postponed the release of information regarding the Lincoln assassination ( in order for example to protect the identities of unproven conspirators)?

 Will the Courts show some common sense and order compliance with the law, or shrug and let the pages of history turn JFK' public execution into a one sentence footnote?

[Michael Griffith]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Somehow, in the coverage of the JFK Records Act, President Joe Biden and CIA Director William Burns are getting 100% passes.

The "somehow" is that Biden is a liberal Democrat and most of our news networks are dominated by liberal "journalists." Just compare their coverage of Biden with their coverage of Joe Manchin. Even though Manchin's voting record is about 70% liberal, most liberals view him as a traitor and a closet Republican. The folks who wear "tolerance and inclusion" on their sleeves and lecture everyone else about being "tolerant and inclusive" are very intolerant and biased toward anyone who disagrees with them.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Somehow, in the coverage of the JFK Records Act, President Joe Biden and CIA Director William Burns are getting 100% passes.

My understanding of the law is the President Biden has authority to order the release of the JFK Records in full. I gather he is supposed to consider the counsel of the CIA director and others, but he is not beholden to the director.

It is Biden's call.

Sec. 2.  Background.  (a)  The Act permits the continued postponement of disclosure of information in records concerning President Kennedy’s assassination only when postponement remains necessary to protect against an identifiable 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 disclosure. 

 

Here is what President Biden said on Dec. 15:

"Temporary continued postponement of public disclosure of such information is necessary to protect against an identifiable 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 disclosure."

This laughable on the face of it. No one could believe there could be identifiable harm to bona fide national security or other national interests in the total release of JFK Records, and other related records 

This leaves two conclusions:

1. Biden is a senile weakling, and actually believes national security would be materially harmed by the release of records, as related to him by CIA Director Burns...or....

2. Biden is deeply corrupt, and knowledgable about the true relations between the CIA and LHO, and has agreed to hide the truth again. 

Is there a third take? Would would that third take be? 

Geez. I am for the release of the freakin' records, but there are tons of legitimate reasons to redact sections of some of them. This becomes obvious when you see what has gradually been released, things like operations within Mexico of which the Mexican police were unaware, etc... I think the CIA et al are correct in that the withholding of this kind of info--if still secret--is justifiable. 

What we need, IMO, is a proper accounting by some sort of middleman--perhaps a  team of researchers with some common sense--who can look through un-redacted copies of what is currently being withheld and release what people are really interested in, such as what Joannides was up to, etc...as opposed to revealing the names of every informant and the existence of every previously unknown operation.  

I mean, tons of damaging stuff has been released in the past, stuff like the Northwoods docs, the HSCA medical testimony, the CIA's Manual on Assassination, and hit lists provided by the CIA to Cuban rebels. So its clear stuff is not being withheld purely because it's embarrassing or runs contradictory to the single-assassin solution. 

It's time the rest of the stuff gets released...with the appropriate redactions. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Lawrence Schnapf]

 Ben- the operative sections regarding postponements are section 6 of the act and section 5(g)(D)

The reasons both Trump and Biden have allowed postponements is that they are reluctant to push back against the security agencies. From my FOIA litigation, it appears that the NSC coordinates the response for the JFK Act compliance. NARA sends out letters to the agencies asking if they plan to seek further postponements. They notify NARA.  Documents that they disagree on are then elevated to the NSC level. The NSC makes the recommendations to the president. Meanwhile, NSC and white house counsel office draft order. President's only role is to sign it.

During the Trump postponements, the narrative was that he was talked out of releasing the records at the last minute by Pompeo. But my FOIA litigation reveals that is not the case.  By the time Trump had tweeted his intention, the 12th version of the order postponing record release for another 3.5 years had been approved by NSC, the agencies and NARA. I suspect the same procedure was used this time. 

Pat-  MFF has a rapid response team working over the holidays doing OCR scanning of the 2022 release so that it will be page searchable. we should have better idea about any nuggets in another week or so.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

 Ben- the operative sections regarding postponements are section 6 of the act and section 5(g)(D)

The reasons both Trump and Biden have allowed postponements is that they are reluctant to push back against the security agencies. From my FOIA litigation, it appears that the NSC coordinates the response for the JFK Act compliance. NARA sends out letters to the agencies asking if they plan to seek further postponements. They notify NARA.  Documents that they disagree on are then elevated to the NSC level. The NSC makes the recommendations to the president. Meanwhile, NSC and white house counsel office draft order. President's only role is to sign it.

During the Trump postponements, the narrative was that he was talked out of releasing the records at the last minute by Pompeo. But my FOIA litigation reveals that is not the case.  By the time Trump had tweeted his intention, the 12th version of the order postponing record release for another 3.5 years had been approved by NSC, the agencies and NARA. I suspect the same procedure was used this time. 

Pat-  MFF has a rapid response team working over the holidays doing OCR scanning of the 2022 release so that it will be page searchable. we should have better idea about any nuggets in another week or so.

 

LS- You are the lawyer, and obviously well-versed on the topic, and I defer to you.

But...is it not true the President can order release of all the JFK Records, and overrule any concerns of any federal agency? So Biden should be criticized for non-disclosure (and Trump before him). 

In fact something would be wrong with our democracy if the US President cannot demand to see, then see, and then release any federal document at any time. 

(The reason I write this is that it appears that President Nixon demanded to see certain Bay of Pigs documents from the CIA but was stonewalled...at least Ehrlichman said so. Another story...but surely A US president can see and release any document at her/his discretion. If not, we do not have a democracy but rather state intel agencies running the show). 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Geez. I am for the release of the freakin' records, but there are tons of legitimate reasons to redact sections of some of them. This becomes obvious when you see what has gradually been released, things like operations within Mexico of which the Mexican police were unaware, etc... I think the CIA et al are correct in that the withholding of this kind of info--if still secret--is justifiable. 

What we need, IMO, is a proper accounting by some sort of middleman--perhaps a  team of researchers with some common sense--who can look through un-redacted copies of what is currently being withheld and release what people are really interested in, such as what Joannides was up to, etc...as opposed to revealing the names of every informant and the existence of every previously unknown operation.  

I mean, tons of damaging stuff has been released in the past, stuff like the Northwoods docs, the HSCA medical testimony, the CIA's Manual on Assassination, and hit lists provided by the CIA to Cuban rebels. So its clear stuff is not being withheld purely because it's embarrassing or runs contradictory to the single-assassin solution. 

It's time the rest of the stuff gets released...with the appropriate redactions. 

PS--

After 60 years...really? 

We have to agree to disagree on this one. 

Keep in mind, what you consider a legitimate loophole to full disclose becomes a four-lane highway to those seeking to suppress documents....