Biden Issues "Final" Certification Under JFK Act

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cory,

      Correct me if I'm wrong here.  Wasn't "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" (GHWB) the POTUS who attached a rider to the 1992 JFK Records Act stipulating that the POTUS could withhold any records, at his discretion, in the interest of "national security," before he (GHWB) agreed to sign the bill?

Addendum:  Here's GHWB's formal statement on signing the JFK Records Act.  If I understand it correctly, GHWB claimed that the POTUS has the Constitutional authority to limit the disclosure of records, in the interest of national security, and that this Executive branch authority cannot be limited by statute.

George Bush: Statement on Signing the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (archive.org)

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Yes- Reagan and Bush made use of signing statements to put their spin on legislation they were signing into law and a last bite at the apple. These statements have dubious legal authority. In addition, section 11 of the JFK Act says it supercedes any other law or court decision that would operate to delay release of information that could be disclosed under the Act  

[Gil Jesus]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

You might be right about the CIA contacts in Dallas. The one topic with more remaining redactions that just about anything else is corporate/proprietary cover organizations. A lot of the names of those companies came out during the Church Committee era, but the records still have stuff like entire page redactions or just a list of corporate cryptonyms with no reference to what the companies actually are. 

An example with New Orleans would be the Christian Fellowship Fund. That was Bill Kent’s cover during the Garrison investigation which was just released in Dec. 2022. Imagine if something came out like the CIA ran agents through the private security company that checked on the TSBD at night, or owned a real estate company that held the deed to the empty house next door to 2515 W. Fifth St?

I have not seen any reference to corporate cover organizations in Dallas anywhere in the ARC, but those organizations definitely existed, so where the hell are the records? 

This whole thing with Biden is a sad joke. I hope Larry et al. can expose this “transparency plan” B.S. for what it is. 

Tom, wouldn't that be a s.o.b. if Southwest Publishing was a CIA connection ? Or if Roy Truly was involved in running guns to Dallas' Cuban exiles ? Or that the TSBD was a warehouse for stolen guns from Fort Hood ? That would be explosive.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Matt Allison]

Mangling a phrase here, but I think it would be helpful to "put a face" on this issue; pick the 5-10 most important docs still being withheld, and publicize the hell out of them. Use that and their backstory to sell the story to the press.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Benjamin Cole I've starting sending individual emails to reporters and media types-so far about 50- about this development. this is classic DC- take action friday afternoon before a holiday while the media is more asleep than usual at the wheel-- or stuck in traffic.

The idea that disclosing the names of FBI informants or CIA sources would create a substantial risk of harm to them 60 years is later is absurd. The agencies have a policy of not releasing their names until they have passed. this robs researchers of the ability to interview them and learn what they knew, saw or heard in 1963. The individuals are now in the their 80s and even 90s.  Any further delays risk having their memories and stories lost to history forever. This is why we are seeking injunctive relief. History will be irreperably harmed if these people cannot be interviewed.     

In documents I obtained as part of my NARA FOIA lawsuit, the NARA leadership ridiculed this concern during the 2017 and 2018 saying: 

“As the information is concerning events more than 50 years old, it is difficult to imagine circumstances under which an individual could be harmed by the release of their name in a file in the JFK Collection." NARA also wrote that “The standard set by the JFK Act and the Assassination Records Review Board during their deliberations is a high one: there has to be “clear and convincing evidence” of a “substantial risk of harm” and recommended denial of postponement requests  

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

Maybe even more unsavory stuff about Hunter Biden will be made public and he'll release the JFK documents to distract from it?

[W. Niederhut]

23 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Yes- Reagan and Bush made use of signing statements to put their spin on legislation they were signing into law and a last bite at the apple. These statements have dubious legal authority. In addition, section 11 of the JFK Act says it supercedes any other law or court decision that would operate to delay release of information that could be disclosed under the Act  

Just a wild guess, but GHWB's 1992 statement asserting the Constitutional right of the POTUS to withhold JFK records sounds like something written by Bill Barr.  Barr was always an advocate of Executive branch authority.

Bill Barr was a CIA lawyer during GHWB'S stint as CIA Director in the 70s.

GHWB appointed Bill Barr as his AG in 1992 to oversee GHWB's pardons of the Reagan/Bush Iran-Contra convicts.

Edited July 1, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cory,

      Correct me if I'm wrong here.  Wasn't "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" (GHWB) the POTUS who attached a rider to the 1992 JFK Records Act stipulating that the POTUS could withhold any records, at his discretion, in the interest of "national security," before he (GHWB) agreed to sign the bill?

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Dubs, Must you be so tribal? it is a blot on Biden.

Though the Barr connection would be very interesting to look into.

Still it would be hard way back then to know who would be in power in 2017, and the political climate at that time.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@W. Niederhut Barr is a one of number of lawyers who worked for DOJ during the Reagan and Bush years who pushed for the robist executive power and the unitary executive theory. Others include now Chief Justice Robers and associate justice Alito. Writing memos that support policies sought by the president is one way that lawyers get to be recognized and be placed on lists for future judicial posts.  Associate Justice Kagan was wrote a law review article about presidential power that no doubt got the attention of the Clinton adminsitration.  In much the say way, the young staff attorneys of the Warren Commission also got rewarded for their work through judicial appointments (Griffin), anoited for political office (Spector), selection to be head of agencies (Coleman) or high profile commissions (Belin for Rockefeller Commission)-just a few examples.     

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Morley on the Friday night massacre of the JFK Act: https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/late-on-a-friday-night-biden-guts?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=315632&post_id=132366781&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email

[W. Niederhut]

45 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Dubs, Must you be so tribal? it is a blot on Biden.

Though the Barr connection would be very interesting to look into.

Still it would be hard way back then to know who would be in power in 2017, and the political climate at that time.

Kirk,

     I'm just trying to give tribal credit where credit is due.

     Is it possible that the 1992 legal mastermind of GHWB'S JFK records suppression strategy is the same Republican toady who arranged the pardons of the Iran-Contra criminals and suppressed the release of the un-redacted Mueller Report?

[James DiEugenio]

The Act began under Bush, but he deliberately did not name anyone to the Board.

Which caused the time factor to exhaust itself.

Clinton had to start all over.

This is really disappointing

[Roger Odisio]

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Act began under Bush, but he deliberately did not name anyone to the Board.

Which caused the time factor to exhaust itself.

Clinton had to start all over.

This is really disappointing

Here is a summary from the Library of Congress of the meaning of Presidential signing statements:

Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement. In 1972, after President Nixon in a signing statement indicated that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect," a federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a President, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect." DaCosta v. Nixon External, 55 F.R.D. 145, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

I like Biden, but the reason this is happening is that, though yes, I agree that is it b.s., he is allowing the intelligence services to convince him that he has to be The Responsible Adult; of course it's crap for 60-year-old info, but being president does, I am certain, change his perspective. Though some of my best friends are liberals, they tend to be easily cowed and too damned timid, and fall like duck pins to certain kind of right-wing fear mongering. It's disgusting to me, and this is like an informational nail in the coffin. I hope the lawsuit changes things but I honestly now doubt we will ever see most of this stuff; at least, to sorta quote Earl Warren, Not In Our Lifetime. The murderous forces of evil have clearly won this one (for now at least).

We have every reason to suspect that there is embarrassing stuff that has been redacted, that (at least to the minds of those not entirely immersed in JFKA research) has nothing to do with the assassination itself. The security apparatus within the U.S. intelligence agencies has been embarrassed lately, first by a former President who sneaks off with some documents to show his friends (or worse), and second by a dumb kid who puts top secret documents up on a gamer website to impress some nerd boys. You gotta believe they don't want to release anything that could add to this embarrassment, and would rather error on the side of caution than make themselves look stupid...again.