Biden Says JFKA Secrets Are Mine, Not Yours

[Paul Brancato]

Lance - doesn’t it make you at least a little suspicious that they are hiding something important? 
The motion seeks to redefine the original law, which states that the President must in each and every case make an argument for continued non-release. This is just blanket presidential authority with no recourse.

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

The statement in the JFK Facts release that the DOJ brief "seeks to dismiss the foundation’s lawsuit on the ground the president has discretion to implement the JFK Records Act without regard for the original intent of Congress," is pretty blatantly false. When the legislative history and even the language of the legislation is as clear as it is for the JFK Records Act, no one would argue the legislative intent may be ignored - and the DOJ brief doesn't suggest this.

I fully support the release of any and all "assassination records" as defined in the JFK Records Act. It's difficult for me to believe anything really satisfies the criteria for postponement at this late date, but I suppose it's conceivable. I do suspect the Trump and Biden postponements didn't receive the level of Presidential attention the Act seems to contemplate but were more in the nature of rubber stamps. When one reads the Act as a whole, it clearly contemplates expeditious disclosure and not niggling over minor items of intelligence-community paranoia. The need to postpone disclosure of any document in full seems inconceivable to me.

I have no prediction, but the motion is largely jurisdictional in nature and courts do tend to love motions that will take work off their calendars in one clean jurisdictional ruling. If the judge denies the motion, that would be a pretty good indication of a plaintiff-friendly judge. Although the JFKA community inevitably and understandably sees this as being about the assassination, the DOJ likely views it more broadly as being about Presidential authority.

 

Of course the brief doesn't ignore the language of the Act. It just misinterprets it. You're a lawyer aren't you, Lance?  Most if not all laws require interpretation. That's why we pay you guys all that money.

 

Under "Duties of the Review Board [the ARRB]", the Act says the Board "shall consider and render decisions (A) whether a record constitutes an assassination record and (B) whether an assassination record or particular information in a record qualifies for postponement of disclosure under this Act". Notice the use of the singular "a record" in both cases.  Particularly (B) where it says the Board shall decide whether "an assassination record" qualifies for postponement of its release

 

To do (A) the Board had to define "record" and their definition included much more information than that held by government agencies mentioned in the Act.

 

The brief ignores all of this. It wrongly cites the definition of record mentioned in the Act. It claims that NARA doesn't have the same responsibilities toward the Act that the the Board did. It doesn't have to complete anything the Board left unfinished.  As if Congress passed the law that was time limited and didn't realize there would be work still to be done after the ARRB closed.

 

Most importantly, the brief claims that Trump's and Biden's blanket postponements of a bunch of records, without naming them or giving a clear reason for each postponement meets the clear standard quoted above.  They do not.

[Guest]

On 2/7/2023 at 2:06 PM, Roger Odisio said:

Of course the brief doesn't ignore the language of the Act. It just misinterprets it. You're a lawyer aren't you, Lance?  Most if not all laws require interpretation. That's why we pay you guys all that money.

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 2/7/2023 at 1:02 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Lance - doesn’t it make you at least a little suspicious that they are hiding something important? 
The motion seeks to redefine the original law, which states that the President must in each and every case make an argument for continued non-release. This is just blanket presidential authority with no recourse.

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

You don't understand the concept of intent. Statutes are interpreted according to multiple rules of statutory construction. The overarching goal is to interpret the statute so as to give effect to the legislative intent. When the statutory language in clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to the legislative history or rules of construction as an aid to intent. When the statutory language is ambiguous, legislative history is consulted as an aid to determining legislative intent. In the case of the JFK Records Act, Congress largely clarified its intent in Section 2, and the remaining provisions should be interpreted in light of Section 2. Contrary to what JFK Facts suggests, the DOJ brief says nothing about the President having the authority to implement the Act without regard to the legislative intent.

You're misunderstanding what the DOJ is arguing insofar as the Act is concerned. The DOJ is arguing that the original decision as to whether disclosure of an assassination record should be disclosed or postponed must be made on a record-by-record basis under Section 5 of the Act, but continued postponement under Section 6 of the Act does not require a new record-by-record determination. I'm not going to play judge, and I do find the Act to be poorly drafted and confusing, but there is a certain logic to the argument that NARA and the President are not required to reinvent the wheel for continued postponement. On the other hand, I could argue, as the plaintiffs apparently have, that the clear legislative intent favoring disclosure weighs in favor of a new determination for continued postponement.

If the DOJ's threshold jurisdiction arguments are successful, of course, the court will never reach the issue of interpreting the Act.

Sometimes I'm almost sorry I went to law school. If I'd been an electrician or plumber, perhaps I wouldn't have "internet lawyers" continually trying to educate me.

In the case of the JFK Records Act, Congress largely clarified its intent in Section 2, and the remaining provisions should be interpreted in light of Section 2. Contrary to what JFK Facts suggests, the DOJ brief says nothing about the President having the authority to implement the Act without regard to the legislative intent.

 

RO:  Not so. In establishing the ARRB to collect and release JFKA records to implement the Act, Congress's intention for the Board is established, as I said, in section 7, not 2, under the obvious title  "Duties of the Review Board". Section 2 only contains statements about the need for the Act and it's purpose--to create the Records Collection at NARA and require expeditious disclosure of records.

 

RO:  When Morley said that Biden acted without regard to the Act's legislative intent, he meant without the intent *that he understood the Act to have established*.  As I already said to you, no one is claiming anybody ignored the intent of the Act.

 

You're misunderstanding what the DOJ is arguing insofar as the Act is concerned. The DOJ is arguing that the original decision as to whether disclosure of an assassination record should be disclosed or postponed must be made on a record-by-record basis under Section 5 of the Act, but continued postponement under Section 6 of the Act does not require a new record-by-record determination. I'm not going to play judge, and I do find the Act to be poorly drafted and confusing, but there is a certain logic to the argument that NARA and the President are not required to reinvent the wheel for continued postponement. On the other hand, I could argue, as the plaintiffs apparently have, that the clear legislative intent favoring disclosure weighs in favor of a new determination for continued postponement.

 

RO:  Some of the records being sought have never received a individual record decision that they must be postponed under the standards of the Act  (that you at least recognize as being required even if the brief doesn't).  Many of the records being sought at the CIA have never even been identified by that agency as JFKA records.  There is no separate postponement standard in Section 6 or anywhere else in the Act, for records previously postponed that differs from the basic standard.  In fact the Act provides for periodic review of postponed records but requires no different standards be used.  This periodic review is a sop Biden has repeatedly used to indicate his decisions are only "temporary" (for 60 years now), so as to try to lessen their impact.

 

Btw, please spare me the appeals to authority.  I've worked with a number of lawyers over the years, good and bad.  I recognize the tactic.  Law often isn't as complicated as some like to claim; it's mostly reading comprehension and attention to detail.

[Denny Zartman]

My observations:

One: It's bipartisan. Whether you're Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton or anyone else, they all agree that it will do no one in the government any good now to reveal the truth about what happened then. It's all downside. They all get a presentation, and at the end of it they all reach the same conclusion. Trump by far would have been the individual most likely to defy them and release everything even if just out of sheer spite, but even he was convinced.

Two: They're not still keeping things secret sixty years later because it was a lone nut, or because the Mafia did it, or because a secret service agent made a whoopsie. You literally don't have to know a single thing about the JFK assassination to see that.

[W. Niederhut]

10 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

My observations:

One: It's bipartisan. Whether you're Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton or anyone else, they all agree that it will do no one in the government any good now to reveal the truth about what happened then. It's all downside. They all get a presentation, and at the end of it they all reach the same conclusion. Trump by far would have been the individual most likely to defy them and release everything even if just out of sheer spite, but even he was convinced.

Two: They're not still keeping things secret sixty years later because it was a lone nut, or because the Mafia did it, or because a secret service agent made a whoopsie. You literally don't have to know a single thing about the JFK assassination to see that.

Well said, Denny.

I had hoped that Biden would prove an exception to the rule of silence-- as the first Irish Catholic POTUS since JFK-- but no dice.  Biden has been too deeply enmeshed in our military-industrial-intelligence complex for too many years.

Now it looks like our only insight into the classified records might come from Tucker Carlson's mysterious "source."

Edited February 8, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

My observations:

One: It's bipartisan. Whether you're Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton or anyone else, they all agree that it will do no one in the government any good now to reveal the truth about what happened then. It's all downside. They all get a presentation, and at the end of it they all reach the same conclusion. Trump by far would have been the individual most likely to defy them and release everything even if just out of sheer spite, but even he was convinced.

Two: They're not still keeping things secret sixty years later because it was a lone nut, or because the Mafia did it, or because a secret service agent made a whoopsie. You literally don't have to know a single thing about the JFK assassination to see that.

Thanks Denny - perfect 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Just to assuage those in this thread, the motion to dismiss was what we expected. no real surprises. we had anticipated the government would file a motion to dismiss before filing an answer to our complaint since this is rather routine for these types of cases.  we are working on our opposition to the motion to dismiss. cant say much more. 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Just to assuage those in this thread, the motion to dismiss was what we expected. no real surprises. we had anticipated the government would file a motion to dismiss before filing an answer to our complaint since this is rather routine for these types of cases.  we are working on our opposition to the motion to dismiss. cant say much more. 

I am not assuaged. 

Enough steam is coming out of my ears to fire a few turbines at Con Ed. 

 

[Bill Fite]

On 2/7/2023 at 2:39 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Dammit.  Biden is pulling a Trump on us.

If I recall correctly, when President George H.W. Bush ("Mr. George Bush of the CIA") signed the JFK Records Act in 1992, he attached a rider granting the POTUS the authority to withhold records at his own discretion.

 

If I remember correctly the duties of the President of the US do not include 'attaching riders' to laws passed by the legislative branch.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

52 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

If I remember correctly the duties of the President of the US do not include 'attaching riders' to laws passed by the legislative branch.

 

A US President cannot attach a rider to a bill. A President might direct a Congressional ally to do so. 

[Guest]

On 2/7/2023 at 5:28 PM, Denny Zartman said:

Two: They're not still keeping things secret sixty years later because it was a lone nut, or because the Mafia did it, or because a secret service agent made a whoopsie. You literally don't have to know a single thing about the JFK assassination to see that.

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Denny Zartman]

Many people, when faced with a tough decision, make a list of pros and cons. For the government (and anyone sitting in the big chair who would be considering releasing these documents) the list is long on the cons and the pros has exactly one item: the truth.

I recognize any of us here would vehemently argue that the truth outweighs an infinite list of cons. I myself would agree. But, unfortunately, reality shows that even someone like Trump, who would gladly burn it all down, says "no thanks" when confronted with the CIA's presentation about the evidence. In my view, that says something. It's essentially the question "Should we release these secret photos?" and learning the photos are horrible beyond imagination.

Fortunately, through the process of elimination we know for certain that, whatever it is, it's not Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, it's not Carlos Marcello, and it's not George Hickey. If it were any of those three, or even if it was Fidel Castro, they'd release all the files in a New York Minute. Every single person reading these words knows it's true.

Actually, I'm surprised they kept anything incriminating. I figured those files would have been disappeared long, long ago or never committed to paper in the first place.

[Mart Hall]

41 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Actually, I'm surprised they kept anything incriminating. I figured those files would have been disappeared long, long ago or never committed to paper in the first place.

Agree with your last posts. 

You’d certainly expect the worst of it to have been destroyed and never made the records. On the basis any inside job or similar would’ve been so highly compartmentalised there’s a good chance records do exist that weren’t properly understood at the time they were taken.