Implementation of the JFK Records Act

[Roger Odisio]

I posted the following in "Politics" in response to a discussion between Jim Di and William, in which W equated Biden's and Trump's decisions about releasing JFK records and decried the lack of attention to Trump.  I'm posting it here because removal of the original thread from this forum is so damaging.  Implementation of the JFK Records Act to require the release of  all of the information about the murder still outstanding could not be more central to researching it: 

 

You keep missing the point, W.  Trump merely passed the buck to Biden.  With the laughably named "transparency plan"  Biden is trying kill use of the JFK Act altogether.  It's a "snuff job".  If allowed, and the MFF lawsuit is challenging it, it means the end of any attempt to use the law to get access to all the JFK records still being hidden.  Not only what the CIA has been hiding, but all the information that has come to light since the ARRB closed 25 years ago.  Like the Darnell and Wiegman films. 

 

This is why the mods decision to remove this thread from the JFKA is so damaging.  Apparently they do not understand how Biden's action goes to the heart of JFKA research.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Trump did not merely pass the buck. he approved a procedure for postponement that did not comply with the law. Biden has adopted it. 

[Roger Odisio]

3 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Trump did not merely pass the buck. he approved a procedure for postponement that did not comply with the law. Biden has adopted it. 

That's true, Larry.  For example Trump issued a blanket postponement when the law requires such a showing for each record being withheld. As you have argued in the suit.  Biden didn't have to also ignore the Act and do the same.  But he did.

But my point is, all of this pales in comparison to Biden's invoking of the "transparency plan" to kill implementation of the Act altogether, including oversight by future presidents..

 

[Roger Odisio]

15 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

That's true, Larry.  For example Trump issued a blanket postponement when the law requires such a showing for each record being withheld. As you have argued in the suit.  Biden didn't have to also ignore the Act and do the same.  But he did.

But my point is, all of this pales in comparison to Biden's invoking of the "transparency plan" to kill implementation of the Act altogether, including oversight by future presidents..

 

Not to mention that pesky Section 12 (b) of the Act which requires NARA's Archivist to certify to Congress, and the President, when he believes *all* JFKA records have been made available to the public.  How is Biden going to get away with removing future presidents from the releasing process in light of that?

[W. Niederhut]

56 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

I posted the following in "Politics" in response to a discussion between Jim Di and William, in which W equated Biden's and Trump's decisions about releasing JFK records and decried the lack of attention to Trump.  I'm posting it here because removal of the original thread from this forum is so damaging.  Implementation of the JFK Records Act to require the release of  all of the information about the murder still outstanding could not be more central to researching it: 

 

You keep missing the point, W.  Trump merely passed the buck to Biden.  With the laughably named "transparency plan"  Biden is trying kill use of the JFK Act altogether.  It's a "snuff job".  If allowed, and the MFF lawsuit is challenging it, it means the end of any attempt to use the law to get access to all the JFK records still being hidden.  Not only what the CIA has been hiding, but all the information that has come to light since the ARRB closed 25 years ago.  Like the Darnell and Wiegman films. 

 

This is why the mods decision to remove this thread from the JFKA is so damaging.  Apparently they do not understand how Biden's action goes to the heart of JFKA research.

It's ironic that you accuse me of missing the point, Roger, when you have completely missed the point of my comments on this subject.

My point was that, in our current polarized political environment, it behooves us to acknowledge that both Trump and Biden have failed to release the JFK records.

Yet, on this forum, we have had multiple, redundant 2023 threads about Biden's "snuff job" on the records, and only one thread (since 2020) about Trump's similar snuff job on the records.

Simultaneously, Trump has been posing as an heroic victim and adversary of the Deep State, while his propagandists in the MAGA media have suddenly begun talking about Biden and the records.

Better late than never, but where was Tucker Carlson when Trump blocked the release of the JFK records in October of 2017 and April of 2018?

And do I need to remind you that the Fox Trumpagandists have been pushing false narratives blaming the Deep State for Trump's crimes (including J6) since 2017?

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Roger Odisio]

37 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's ironic that you accuse me of missing the point, Roger, when you have completely missed the point of my comments on this subject.

My point was that, in our current polarized political environment, it behooves us to acknowledge that both Trump and Biden have failed to release the JFK records.

Yet, on this forum, we have had multiple, redundant 2023 threads about Biden's "snuff job" on the records, and only one thread (since 2020) about Trump's similar snuff job on the records.

Simultaneously, Trump has been posing as an heroic victim and adversary of the Deep State, while his propagandists in the MAGA media have suddenly begun talking about Biden and the records.

Better late than never, but where was Tucker Carlson when Trump blocked the release of the JFK records in October of 2017 and April of 2018?

And do I need to remind you that the Fox Trumpagandists have been pushing false narratives blaming the Deep State for Trump's crimes (including J6) since 2017?

 

 

 

Still don't get it, W?  Biden's "snuff job" refers to his attempt to essentially eliminate future implementation of the JFK Act, and in particular any involvement by him or future presidents in release decisions, as required by the Act.  

There was no "similar" snuff job by Trump.  He did illegally postponed release of some records by ignoring requirements in the Act for such postponements.  Biden didn't have to do that too, but the did.

A side note:  I don't understand why the mods let you keep labeling Ben as MAGA Ben.  That's false, as Ben has explained.  And you know it's false.  

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Still don't get it, W?  Biden's "snuff job" refers to his attempt to essentially eliminate future implementation of the JFK Act, and in particular any involvement by him or future presidents in release decisions, as required by the Act.  

There was no "similar" snuff job by Trump.  He did illegally postponed release of some records by ignoring requirements in the Act for such postponements.  Biden didn't have to do that too, but the did.

A side note:  I don't understand why the mods let you keep labeling Ben as MAGA Ben.  That's false, as Ben has explained.  And you know it's false.  

Get a clue, Roger.

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with Ben's history of repeatedly pushing false MAGA narratives on this forum.

Last year, Ben spent months promoting Tucker Carlson's bogus "patriot purge" narrative about Trump's J6 attack on the U.S. Congress, while adamantly refusing to watch the Congressional J6 hearings, which he derided as a "circus." (See the 56 Years thread for details.)

Ben has, similarly, insisted that the 2016 Trump campaign's well-documented involvement with Russia was a "Russia hoax," while refusing to read the (redacted) Mueller Report, or the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

This year, after Tucker Carlson's surprising commentaries about the JFK assassination and records,  Ben has started numerous redundant threads (roughly 20) about Biden's "snuff job" on the JFK records.

Most of these redundant anti-Biden threads have paralleled the bogus propaganda narratives in the MAGA media framing Trump as a victim and adversary of the Deep State-- as if Trump, himself, hadn't blocked the release of the JFK records!

On the campaign trail recently, Trump has been running with this bogus narrative by declaring that he will, "obliterate the Deep State" when he is re-elected.

But this is not really the partisan wedge issue that Trump and his MAGA propagandists are selling, is it?

If anything, Christopher Wray and the Trump era FBI obstructed FBI investigations of Trump, and James Comey's FBI promoted his election to the White House.

 

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

A side note:  I don't understand why the mods let you keep labeling Ben as MAGA Ben.  That's false, as Ben has explained.  And you know it's false.  

Bump!

[James DiEugenio]

In my opinion, there is little more important to this case than what Biden did in his Friday night news dump.

Which successfully managed to dodge any MSM attention.  Although Robert Kennedy did mention it. But we know what the MSM thinks of him. So did Oliver Stone, but same thing right?

Biden has been president for the last almost three years.  Trump was properly hammered by us for what he did.  

But Joe Biden is a Democrat, and Irish, and he voted for the JFK Act.  Plus he has Bobby Kennedy's bust in his office and JFK's painting in his study.  To me, that makes what he did even worse, EVEN WITHOUT his last rather disgusting executive order.  Andrew Iler, a good lawyer, and an expert on the JFK Act, called what Biden did: taking a flame thrower to the JFK Records Collections Act.

To those who do not understand what Biden did, its kind of simple in its brutality.  He essentially stopped the process dead in its tracks.  But further, all of the laws and strictures in the ARRB act were now going to be circumvented.  In fact Biden created a whole new process suggested by the CIA. Now each executive agency would be allowed to plead its case to something called the National Declassification Centre.  There is no mention of the NDC in the JFK Records Collection Act.  But beyond that, Biden changed the standard of proof for classification. He actually created a standard that did not exist.  Its called something like, "except when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise." 

I wish I was kidding.  I write about this travesty in the conclusion to an anthology I contributed to coming out for the 60th.

[James DiEugenio]

If anything, as many have said, the strictures of the JFK Act should be more applicable today than they were in 1992.  For the simple matter that any claim for national security is weaker now than it was then.  Plus the original Act stressed that very point.  That the need for disclosure, 30 years on, clearly outweighed any claim to national security.  That argument is even stronger today, 30 years past the act, than it was then.

It is very clear today that the CIA faked out the ARRB about Joannides.  Tunheim admitted this to Oliver Stone for his JFK Revisited film.  And they did this in order to conceal something that might be worse than what we already know.  Namely that Joannides was cleared for something called SI, special intelligence in the summer of 1963.  Just what that was we cannot know in the state of affairs we have today. 

And with what Biden did, I do not think we will ever know.

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

All of this seems to be to be of the greatest relevance to this forum.  It goes to the very heart of what it is about.  It is not political bickering about the upcoming election. Its about what really happened to President Kennedy.

If Ben was banned for displaying a private column in a public forum, that is one thing.  But even if that was it, I think 30 days was overdoing it.

But putting these arguments, which he had not seen yet, out here is perfectly legitimate.

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

All of this seems to be to be of the greatest relevance to this forum.  It goes to the very heart of what it is about.  It is not political bickering about the upcoming election. Its about what really happened to President Kennedy.

If Ben was banned for displaying a private column in a public forum, that is one thing.  But even if that was it, I think 30 days was overdoing it.

But putting these arguments, which he had not seen yet, out here is perfectly legitimate.

Ben did not link to the Morley article. All he did was post a notice that it existed for anyone who wanted to read it.  I subscribe to Morley and had read it.  Ben explained this.  The mods could not have missed his explanation

If he was banned for posting the notice of the article, which, as you say goes to heart of the task of this forum, that is beyond ludicrous.

The ball is in your court, Sandy.  Was Ben banned and if so why? 

The whole idea of mods banning members without notice to the group or explanation of the reasons is distasteful.

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

I'm, frankly, appalled that some members of this forum, apparently, don't find it objectionable for a member to have posted multiple, redundant threads about the same topic-- the Biden "snuff job" on the JFK records.

Some of these redundant anti-Biden MAGA spam threads were even posted on consecutive DAYS-- after a number of forum members had complained about the partisan, anti-Biden spamming of the JFKA board.  The point of this partisan spamming was obvious to those of us who have tried to debate about contemporary political subjects with Ben Cole during the past two years.

It was the main reason that the 56 Years thread was removed from the JFKA board and closed.  Redundant spam.

One or two informed threads by James DiEugenio and Larry Schnapf about Biden's actions would have sufficed-- and, in fact, we have had some good discussions here about what Biden (and Trump) have done to the JFK Records Act.

Also, I notice that Roger Odisio, in particular, and Mathew Koch, are continuing to post complaints about the moderators on this JFKA board, instead of posting their complaints on the designated board for the moderators.

[James DiEugenio]

Roger:

I did not know that.

Whew.

Then he did not even link to Substack?

If that is true, then yes the decision should be explained. 

The evisceration of the JFK Act by Biden is the most important thing happening in this case right now and everyone should be talking about it for the 60th.

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Ben did not link to the Morley article. All he did was post a notice that it existed for anyone who wanted to read it.  I subscribe to Morley and had read it.  Ben explained this.  The mods could not have missed his explanation

 

Yes Roger, Ben did post a link to Morley's article. I know because I clicked it and read part of it.

 

11 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

If he was banned for posting the notice of the article, which, as you say goes to heart of the task of this forum, that is beyond ludicrous.

 

The article is dated July 1, 2023.... more than two months old. It is about what Ben likes to call "Biden's snuff job."

Ben has posted on this very topic numerous times. I penalized him for spamming.

I gave Ben 10 penalty points, which as a first offense would be a one-day loss of posting privileges. I just checked Ben's penalty history and found that another moderator had earlier given Ben 30 points for a different offense. The penalty system is more severe on repeat offenders. And so my 10 point penalty was the straw that resulted in Ben getting an 8-day suspension of posting privileges. Not the 30 days that others have surmised.

 

11 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

The whole idea of mods banning members without notice to the group or explanation of the reasons is distasteful.

 

We give warnings and penalties nearly every day. It is none of the other forum members' business who is penalized. It is the penalized member's prerogative whether or not to share that information with other members.