Trump told Roger Stone that He "Won't Believe" What's in the Classified JFK Assassination Files

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Benjamin Cole @W. Niederhut  To be fair, Garland has very little to do with approval of executive orders. Under the process set forth pursuant to 1 CFR 19, the Office of Legal Counsel which serves as the president's lawyer is supposed to review executive orders for compliance with law. But the order would have been drafted by an attorney within the National Security Office after consultation with the relevant agencies and NARA.

The extent that the Office of Legal Counsel takes a "hard look" at these orders varies. Often times, they just go through the motions. This is how we ended up with the torture memo being approved.....  

[W. Niederhut]

27 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Set aside your biliousness, and personal feculent invective, and anti-Trump juvenalia for a moment---how do you explain AG Merrick Garland, who you define as a stellar jurist, authoring and condoning an illegal snuff job on the JFK Records Act?

 

 

Ben,

Since you persist in your feculent MAGA focus on defaming President Biden and Merrick Garland -- while misinterpreting any discussion of Trump's snuff job on the JFK records as "anti-Trump juvenalia" -- how, exactly, do you explain the Trump and Biden administrations' decisions to withhold the JFK records? 

Is it simply a Deep State cover up, or are there, possibly, legitimate security concerns about releasing the redacted intelligence files? 

Do we know the answer to that question?

Meanwhile, you never commented, in a topical way, on the recent Newsweek thread here about Trump telling Roger Stone that the withheld JFK records were, "so horrible you wouldn't believe it."

Was Trump telling the truth, in your opinion?

And, if so, what was too "horrible" to believe?

Answer the question about the reasons for the Trump snuff job, instead of endlessly repeating your feculent anti-Biden MAGA tropes.

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

Since you persist in your feculent MAGA focus on defaming President Biden and Merrick Garland -- while misinterpreting any discussion of Trump's snuff job on the JFK records as "anti-Trump juvenalia" -- how, exactly, do you explain the Trump and Biden administrations' decisions to withhold the JFK records? 

Is it simply a Deep State cover up, or are there, possibly, legitimate security concerns about releasing the redacted intelligence files? 

Do we know the answer to that question?

Meanwhile, you never commented, in a topical way, on the recent Newsweek thread here about Trump telling Roger Stone that the withheld JFK records were, "so horrible you wouldn't believe it."

Was Trump telling the truth, in your opinion?

And, if so, what was too "horrible" to believe?

Answer the question about the reasons for the Trump snuff job, instead of endlessly repeating your feculent anti-Biden MAGA tropes.

 

It is not possible to defame Garland and Biden---they have done an illegal snuff job on the JFK Records. They have defamed themselves, far beyond my modest powers. They are covered in indelible glory, in sepia hues. 

I do not believe anything Trump says. Or Biden either. With abundant reason, sadly enough. 

And that is very good reason to vote for RFK Jr.

[W. Niederhut]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

It is not possible to defame Garland and Biden---they have done an illegal snuff job on the JFK Records. They have defamed themselves, far beyond my modest powers. They are covered in indelible glory, in sepia hues. 

I do not believe anything Trump says. Or Biden either. With abundant reason, sadly enough. 

And that is very good reason to vote for RFK Jr.

Ben,

    You didn't answer the questions, but simply rephrased your anti-Biden MAGA trope.

     Nice fold.

   

[Benjamin Cole]

48 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    You didn't answer the questions, but simply rephrased your anti-Biden MAGA trope.

     Nice fold.

   

Seriously? 

Condemning the Biden snuff job on the JFK Records Act is a MAGA trope?

We are all MAGAts now. 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Benjamin Cole @W. Niederhut  To be fair, Garland has very little to do with approval of executive orders. Under the process set forth pursuant to 1 CFR 19, the Office of Legal Counsel which serves as the president's lawyer is supposed to review executive orders for compliance with law. But the order would have been drafted by an attorney within the National Security Office after consultation with the relevant agencies and NARA.

The extent that the Office of Legal Counsel takes a "hard look" at these orders varies. Often times, they just go through the motions. This is how we ended up with the torture memo being approved.....  

LS-

I am layman, but this description of the President's Office of Legal Counsel (see below) defines it as part of the AG's bailiwick.

I cannot see how the AG can escape responsibility for what has happened to the JFK Records. 

If Garland was clueless before-hand---which would seem to be a dereliction of duty---then he has a responsibility now to correct the illegal Biden snuff job on the JFK Records Act, or resign in protest. 

"The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) assists the Attorney General of the United States in their function as legal adviser to the President and all the executive branch agencies, hence the appellation "the president's law firm." OLC drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions" ...

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

The AG typically does not get involved with routine matters of the OLC. While the "Buck stops here" applies to Garland in his capacity as AG, he really did not play a role in vetting the executive order. that was the job of the professionals in the OLC.

[Benjamin Cole]

25 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

The AG typically does not get involved with routine matters of the OLC. While the "Buck stops here" applies to Garland in his capacity as AG, he really did not play a role in vetting the executive order. that was the job of the professionals in the OLC.

Well, if you say so.

1. Is the OLC part of the White House, paid by White House and budget, or part of the AG's office?

2. Even so, as AG Garland must be aware by now that what Biden has done, in regards to the JFK Records Act, is illegal. No one seriously disputes this. Does Garland have no responsibilities to keep the Administration honest? Is not resigning in protest a viable option? 

This is from the OLC itself:

 

By delegation from the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides legal advice to the President and all executive branch agencies.  The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and provides its own written opinions and other advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and other components of the Department of Justice.

---30---

"The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General"

Seems like the AG needs to wake up---the most kind comment possible. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Benjamin Cole I dont know how many ways to same this. The OLC is unit of DOJ which is a hugh organization that is manned by professionals.

Garland is briefed on the work of each unit by its senior staff but he relies on his assistant attorney generals to make sure the work is done properly.The AG does not get involved in executive orders unless he is asked by the head of OLC. They will come to him if there are issues. 

The office of the executive (EOP) contains the NSC among others. Sometimes the president or EOP asks OLC for an opinion (e.g., the torture memo) to support a particular policy. I suspect this also happened with the student loan forgiveness policy. OLC tends to try to accomodate POTUS on his policy requests.

With the JFK Act, NSC was tasked with leading the effort since this obstensibly involved national security. NSC led the meetings, worked with the other agencies and drafted both the recommendation by the archivist to the president as well as the executive order. it is an orchestrated process.

Unless someone called up Garland and told him there was seriously wrong with the executive order, he would not get involved. this is why we have layers of bureucrats. Only the issues that cannot be resolved by middle management ever get to the AG or POTUS for that matter.  There simply is not enough time in a single day for the AG to review and approve every piece of paper produced by DOJ.      

[Joe Bauer]

12 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Benjamin Cole I dont know how many ways to same this. The OLC is unit of DOJ which is a hugh organization that is manned by professionals.

Garland is briefed on the work of each unit by its senior staff but he relies on his assistant attorney generals to make sure the work is done properly.The AG does not get involved in executive orders unless he is asked by the head of OLC. They will come to him if there are issues. 

The office of the executive (EOP) contains the NSC among others. Sometimes the president or EOP asks OLC for an opinion (e.g., the torture memo) to support a particular policy. I suspect this also happened with the student loan forgiveness policy. OLC tends to try to accomodate POTUS on his policy requests.

With the JFK Act, NSC was tasked with leading the effort since this obstensibly involved national security. NSC led the meetings, worked with the other agencies and drafted both the recommendation by the archivist to the president as well as the executive order. it is an orchestrated process.

Unless someone called up Garland and told him there was seriously wrong with the executive order, he would not get involved. this is why we have layers of bureucrats. Only the issues that cannot be resolved by middle management ever get to the AG or POTUS for that matter.  There simply is not enough time in a single day for the AG to review and approve every piece of paper produced by DOJ.      

Thank you for making all this understandable.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Benjamin Cole I dont know how many ways to same this. The OLC is unit of DOJ which is a hugh organization that is manned by professionals.

Garland is briefed on the work of each unit by its senior staff but he relies on his assistant attorney generals to make sure the work is done properly.The AG does not get involved in executive orders unless he is asked by the head of OLC. They will come to him if there are issues. 

The office of the executive (EOP) contains the NSC among others. Sometimes the president or EOP asks OLC for an opinion (e.g., the torture memo) to support a particular policy. I suspect this also happened with the student loan forgiveness policy. OLC tends to try to accomodate POTUS on his policy requests.

With the JFK Act, NSC was tasked with leading the effort since this obstensibly involved national security. NSC led the meetings, worked with the other agencies and drafted both the recommendation by the archivist to the president as well as the executive order. it is an orchestrated process.

Unless someone called up Garland and told him there was seriously wrong with the executive order, he would not get involved. this is why we have layers of bureucrats. Only the issues that cannot be resolved by middle management ever get to the AG or POTUS for that matter.  There simply is not enough time in a single day for the AG to review and approve every piece of paper produced by DOJ.      

LS-

OK. I am just asking questions, as a layman. 

In your estimation, would the OLC have reviewed the Biden executive order on the JFK Records Act? 

Or would the executive order be recommended and written by the NSC staffers, the Archivist, with no input from OLC, and then sent directly for Biden's signature? 

At this late date, surely AG Garland is aware what has happened regarding the JFK Records Act, within the Administration in which he serves.

Does the AG have any obligation at this point to try to enforce the law? 

[Jonathan Cohen]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

At this late date, surely AG Garland is aware what has happened regarding the JFK Records Act, within the Administration in which he serves.

Does the AG have any obligation at this point to try to enforce the law? 

Silly Ben! Don’t you know Garland is far too busy perpetrating “hoaxes” against Donald Trump?

[W. Niederhut]

10 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Benjamin Cole I dont know how many ways to same this. The OLC is unit of DOJ which is a hugh organization that is manned by professionals.

Garland is briefed on the work of each unit by its senior staff but he relies on his assistant attorney generals to make sure the work is done properly.The AG does not get involved in executive orders unless he is asked by the head of OLC. They will come to him if there are issues. 

The office of the executive (EOP) contains the NSC among others. Sometimes the president or EOP asks OLC for an opinion (e.g., the torture memo) to support a particular policy. I suspect this also happened with the student loan forgiveness policy. OLC tends to try to accomodate POTUS on his policy requests.

With the JFK Act, NSC was tasked with leading the effort since this obstensibly involved national security. NSC led the meetings, worked with the other agencies and drafted both the recommendation by the archivist to the president as well as the executive order. it is an orchestrated process.

Unless someone called up Garland and told him there was seriously wrong with the executive order, he would not get involved. this is why we have layers of bureucrats. Only the issues that cannot be resolved by middle management ever get to the AG or POTUS for that matter.  There simply is not enough time in a single day for the AG to review and approve every piece of paper produced by DOJ.      

Larry,

       Thank you.  Your inside knowledge of these details is extremely helpful.

       Meanwhile, it looks like Ben has been getting this week's anti-Garland tropes from the MAGA-verse.*

       Ben continues to provide a valuable service to the forum, by serving as the mouthpiece of the MAGA media.

 

* Republicans Step Up Assault on the FBI

July 8, 2023 at 10:16 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 14 Comments

“When Merrick Garland was nominated to the US supreme court by Barack Obama, Republicans refused to grant him a hearing. Now that Garland is the top law enforcement official in America, the party seems ready to give him one after all – an impeachment hearing,” The Guardian reports.

“Republicans on Capitol Hill are moving up a gear in a wide-ranging assault on the justice department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that would have been unthinkable before the rise of Donald Trump. The party that for half a century claimed the mantle of law and order has, critics say, become a cult of personality intent on discrediting and dismantling institutions that get in Trump’s way.”

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Benjamin Cole I dont know how many ways to same this. The OLC is unit of DOJ which is a hugh organization that is manned by professionals.

Garland is briefed on the work of each unit by its senior staff but he relies on his assistant attorney generals to make sure the work is done properly.The AG does not get involved in executive orders unless he is asked by the head of OLC. They will come to him if there are issues. 

The office of the executive (EOP) contains the NSC among others. Sometimes the president or EOP asks OLC for an opinion (e.g., the torture memo) to support a particular policy. I suspect this also happened with the student loan forgiveness policy. OLC tends to try to accomodate POTUS on his policy requests.

With the JFK Act, NSC was tasked with leading the effort since this obstensibly involved national security. NSC led the meetings, worked with the other agencies and drafted both the recommendation by the archivist to the president as well as the executive order. it is an orchestrated process.

Unless someone called up Garland and told him there was seriously wrong with the executive order, he would not get involved. this is why we have layers of bureucrats. Only the issues that cannot be resolved by middle management ever get to the AG or POTUS for that matter.  There simply is not enough time in a single day for the AG to review and approve every piece of paper produced by DOJ.      

LS-

"Unless someone called up Garland and told him there was seriously wrong with the executive order, he would not get involved."--LS

Let me ask this: You mean, no one involved in the fabricating of the executive order, that is doing a snuff job on the JFK Records in violation of law, thought there was something "seriously wrong" with such an order? 

How is that possible? 

But the Biden White House must have known they were doing something---well, seriously untoward. 

We know this from the fact they scheduled the announcement of the JFK Records snuff job for late Friday---the usual Friday night massacre strategy. No press conference, no signing ceremonies, no flag waving. 

You mean, no one thought to tell the AG of the nation of an illegal executive order to shut down the release of the JFK Records, a release required by law?

I realize the JFK Records are far more important to the non-partisan readers of this forum than most voters. But this was hardly an obscure executive order regarding, say, sheep allotments under Bureau of Land Management auspices. 

I find it hard to believe AG Garland was not apprised of the pending executive order. 

Can you confirm that? Or is this your supposition of what happened? 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Benjamin Cole  First, you have to understand how the bureacracy works. The NSC has the lead on this assignment. it makes a recommendation to the president giving him talking points. Once he signs off, everyone then does their job to implement this policy.

OLC is often asked to write a memo to support a policy the president wants to implement. On other ocasions, OLC reviews executive orders to make sure they conform to law and procedure but dont take a "hard look" as a judge or opposing counsel would do. unless there is an egregious mistake of law, OLC will bless the order perhaps making some minor edits.   

And the NARA folks reguarly work with their declassification counterparts at the other agencies (including NSC). They are all implementing policy established by superiors. They dont want to get the reputation of being difficult to work with. Unless they want to become a whistleblower and ruin their career, they are not going to violate the chain of command. 

From the documents produced in my NARA lawsuit, the AOTUS initially disagreed with the CIA and FBI grounds for postponement of certain records in August 2017. Eventually, NARA capitulated as the AOTUS signed a memo prepared by the NSC recommending postponement. He was being a good bureaucrat. 

There  was even an October 19, 2017 email where the NARA CEO made a point of saying that he was:

"not trying to be difficult" and that "don't want you thinking that NARA is over here trying to substitute our judgement for DoD's...we just want you to make your decisions informed by what we know based on the broader JFK Collection and what has otherwise been released at NARA ."

Hope that gives you some insight on how the executive branch works in the real world.