RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Simpich writes: "About 30,000 JFK files were supposed to be fully released yesterday. The American people only got 2,800."

President Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963. (photo: Getty)
President Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963. (photo: Getty)

Trump Promised the JFK Files, but the Big Dogs Ate His Homework

By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

27 October 17


bout 30,000 JFK files were supposed to be fully released yesterday. The American people only got 2800.

As repeatedly advertised in the media and the National Archives, about 3100 of these files had never seen the light of day. (The others had been released in part.)

By using the 2800 figure and comparing it to the touted 3100 figure, Trump’s people apparently hoped that the busy media would not realize how badly he had dropped the ball. I can assure you that The Washington Post and The New York Times completely missed it. Even the well-respected NBC News (and many other outlets) got it wrong, saying “2891 of at least 3140“ were released, falling into Trump’s trap.

Almost 30,000 documents remain concealed from the American people.

How many of the touted 3100 got released yesterday? Jimmy Falls at WhoWhatWhy did a careful count and told me he came up with 52.

What has happened completely violates the JFK Act of 1992, which was designed to ensure that all the records of the assassination went into the hands of the people.

The JFK Act states that “each assassination record shall be publicly disclosed in full, and available in the Collection no later than the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of this Act, unless the President certifies, as required by this Act, that

(i) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and

(ii) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

Trump’s excuse was basically that the big dog ate his homework. You can read it here. He wrote that there is going to be a “temporary withholding” to find out if the documents qualify for continued postponement.

The law says “no later than 25 years” unless there is an identifiable harm. Trump had to resort to asking for an additional six months to see if there was an identifiable harm. Sorry. Time is up.

What’s in these documents? More things you can imagine. Here are a few quick examples:

This newly released 1975 CIA memo mentions how “one summary paper covers our involvement in research on techniques for influencing human behavior and on methods of protecting Agency personnel against hostile use of drugs or “brain working” techniques.”

Newly lifted redactions reveal that two weeks before the assassination, LITAMIL-9 (Luis Alberu Soeto) met with CIA officer Robert Shaw (known as “Lawrence Barker”). A Cuban embassy employee, Alberu monitored the compound for the CIA. Sylvia Duran was the secretary at the Cuban consulate who interviewed Oswald when he sought a visa to go to Cuba two months before the JFK assassination.

Sylvia is still alive, and perhaps the most important witness on the report that Lee Oswald tried to obtain a visa to visit Cuba in September 1963 in Mexico City. Sylvia has stated repeatedly that she did not place a tapped phone call with Lee Oswald to the Soviet consulate. If Sylvia is telling the truth, it would indicate that both her voice and Oswald’s voice were impersonated on the telephone, as documented in the wiretap transcripts. (Full disclosure: I wrote about this story in my online book State Secret).

Many have accused Sylvia of being a CIA agent. This document proves that she was not, as Shaw reported that LITAMIL-9 advised him that he thinks “Sylvia is a very intelligent girl. He thinks we might be able to gain her cooperation by getting a desirable male next to her – she is, according to L-9, ‘a little putita.’“

The release of a redaction on a “Harvey Lee Oswald” document. “Harvey Lee Oswald” is an inversion of Lee Oswald’s name – many believe this was routinely done by various agencies so that the agency could truthfully say that it had no file on “Lee Harvey Oswald.” The CIA had a large number of “Lee Henry Oswald“ files right up until that day in Dallas.

This 1972 “Harvey Lee Oswald” document needs some context. The CIA Director had issued a directive saying that no source or defector could be asked any questions about Oswald.

It reveals that Jane Curtis had to return any questions that she had about Oswald to her boss. Curtis had worked on the Oswald investigation since the time of the assassination. She was not allowed to pose them to defector Oleg Lyalin.

Who was Lyalin? A Soviet specialist on “wet affairs” (assassinations). Lyalin told the US that the “Department 13 assassination program” had ended as early as 1959. This was extremely damaging to the notion that Oswald had gone to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City to speak with KGB agent Valeriy Kostikov, who was supposedly an active member of the “wet affairs” at Department 13. It was this story that convinced Chief Justice Earl Warren to lead the Warren Commission – LBJ told him that a war with the Soviets would result in 40 million American dead.

There are many more stories like these waiting to be explored. The Mary Ferrell Foundation has scanned more than a million of these documents with walkthroughs that take the reader through the various Cold War histories and controversies. It’s a fascinating process. Students in New Jersey have drafted a Cold Case Act to study the civil rights murders of the 20th Century using a similar approach.

There was nothing fascinating about what happened yesterday. Today’s media decision makers were massively unprepared for the clash between Trump and the intelligence agencies.

The intelligence agencies won. They generally do. They are the big dogs.

The mass media, like the intelligence agencies, realize how badly they blew it in 1963. Both sectors continue to justify their institutional failure. They can’t tell the story straight. It’s like reverse muscle memory.

Lessons learned? Interested in analyzing the problems with intelligence, then and now? Thanks to Trump, we have a six-month window to conduct a clinic on how to do your homework. Let’s try to get it right.

Bill Simpich is an Oakland attorney who knows that it doesn't have to be like this. He was part of the legal team chosen by Public Justice as Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2003 for winning a jury verdict of 4.4 million in Judi Bari's lawsuit against the FBI and the Oakland police. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+7 # chapdrum 2017-10-27 13:48
If only we had contemporary concern for revisiting WTC.
+6 # John S. Browne 2017-10-27 18:26

Actually, we do; but you likely mean on a more widespread basis, correct?


And many others, accessible via my website at:

Living In A World Full Of Lies

+6 # Johnny 2017-10-27 14:10
The same big dogs make sure that the U.S. government remains a puppet of Israel. Kennedy opposed the Israeli nuclear weapon project; LBJ, who wanted to be president, subsidized it and donated uranium.
+2 # vt143 2017-10-27 14:34
Makes you wonder why............ ..........
+8 # neis 2017-10-27 15:11
Dear Readers and Historians --
We really appreciate your understanding in this matter. Due to the enormous volume of information that needs reprocessing, six months is the absolute minimum needed to get these materials into proper shape, acceptable for public consumption. Thanks for your patience. Respectfully,
--Winston Smith--
+3 # Blackjack 2017-10-27 15:51
And just see how doing so has kept him in the MSM spotlight for the last two days! Just what we need!
+5 # John S. Browne 2017-10-27 17:50

Well, this article says a whole lot of nothing. And Simpich sounds like he doesn't believe that "the 'intelligence' agencies" assassinated JFK, and that he (only?) believes that they are hiding so much of what really, and/or supposedly, happened in and around the assassination, simply because they are trying to cover up and deny their failures to prevent it, etc.; and, as Simpich puts it, " badly they blew it in 1963...".

+3 # bsimpich 2017-10-28 01:27
John, I’m happy to let you know that you are mistaken about what I believe.
-4 # John S. Browne 2017-10-28 14:43

I'm glad that I was wrong, IF I was wrong, but how do I know I was? You haven't proved it. Your simply denying that I was correct doesn't prove it. And, if I was, or am, wrong on this specific issue, don't you think you should have made it clear how you believe on that issue, and/or (at least) that you shouldn't have left the impression that the intelligence agencies are only preventing disclosures on the JFK assassination because of " badly they blew it in 1963..." in preventing said travesty?

So, then, you believe that the intelligence agencies perpetrated the assassination, and/or facilitated its perpetration, as it is clear from the available evidence that they did?

0 # bsimpich 2017-10-28 21:47
What I wrote was an article about how Trump was intimidated by the intelligence agencies.

I did not write an article on who killed JFK - for me, the prime suspects include Secret Service, CIA and military officers.

Why would I raise that issue in a news article?

There's no such thing as objective journalism, but reaching out to readers who may not share your belief system is one of the best ways to communicate.

I am willing to reach out to you. You might want to take a look at he book I wrote on the JFK killing - which I hyperlinked in the article you wrote - after visiting your website, I think you might appreciate it.
0 # John S. Browne 2017-10-29 16:32

Thanks for the link that you sent to my blog, but I did NOT receive it. I just checked my blog's dashboard, and it shows no new comments. Perhaps Akismet (a spam plugin) interpreted it as spam, but it shouldn't have unless you were trying to sell something; and, if Akismet had any doubts, it would have sent the comment to my dashboard for review, but there's nothing new there. Please just link to it in a comment in this thread. Thank you.

Again, I'm glad I was wrong, and I appreciate your stand on the matter of JFK's assassination. Thanks for clarifying it for me (and others?).

+1 # lfeuille 2017-10-27 19:55
Someone has to leak the rest of it.
+1 # futhark 2017-10-27 23:39
It is not possible for a government to have an appointed body of men charged with maintaining the safety of the chief executive who do not see it in their long-term interest to be the ones who control that person and, ultimately, choose who he shall be or if he should continue in that office. In the Roman Empire this group was called the Praetorian Guard. In the United States it is the CIA, FBI, and other agencies of state security.

Mr. Trump is just smart enough to understand that he is within their power and so must be careful to assure their satisfaction, even at the cost of truth and justice. Mr. Trump appears to care so little for these anyway.
+3 # David Starr 2017-10-28 08:45
A book entitled "Rush to Judgement" by lawyer Mark Lane says that Sylvia Duran was supposed to assassinate Fidel Castro. The CIA told her that Castro was going to kill their child. (Both were lovers.) It turns out that the CIA was lying. But Duran couldn't bring herself to do it anyway.

The book also mentions CIA assets Frank Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt. Both were in Dallas the day of JFK's assassination. After it occurred, Sturgis said, "We made history."
+1 # John S. Browne 2017-10-28 14:49

And E. Howard Hunt more or less admitted on his deathbed, through his son, St. (Saint) John Hunt (yes, that's his real, legal name), that he and the CIA were involved in carrying out and actually perpetrating the assassination.

-1 # Caliban 2017-10-30 12:31
Yes, but is Hunt believable about anything?
-5 # Caliban 2017-10-29 13:36
I was in the audience for Mark Lane's original presentations in New York back in 1963/64. His arguments seemed shaky then and still do.

Personally, the few things I am pretty certain of are (1) that Lee Harvey Oswald fired a rifle at JFK, (2) that the shots from the Book Depository were easy ones for experienced shooters (doubters should go there and judge), and (3) that some hit their target.

Were there others involved? Possibly. But the evidence against Oswald -- though circumstantial -- remains convincing.
0 # David Starr 2017-10-31 08:03
For now, I'll trust Lane's research.

Ballistic experts showed that the Italian carbine rifle Oswald allegedly used couldn't have fired some many shots in so many seconds. Besides, Oswald wasn't that proficient in firing a rifle.

Further, the Zupruder film footage showed JFK grabbing at his neck when he was shot in that area. In examining the bullet wounds in his neck, it was stated that the shots came from the front. (Although they could have come from the back also.) The fatal shot shows JFK being hit on the right side of his head, where a chunk of his skull was dislodged. Based on this, the direction of the shot was clear enough to see. After being hit, JFK slumped to the left. Thus, the grassy knoll scenario comes into play.
0 # Caliban 2017-11-09 15:17
The JFK assassination remains a fascinating topic, and I wish Trump would release the rest of the papers. But simply trusting Mark Lane does not constitute meaningful research for anybody really interested in the case.

The grassy knoll counter-theory, for instance. The grassy knoll was too open and visible to spectators and Secret Service body guards alike for a rifleman to set up an ambush there. Sadly, the Book Depository where Oswald worked was perfect for such an attack.

And the notion that Oswald couldn't shoot is totally unfounded. He may not have been a great shot by US Marine standards, but he passed the Corp's Marksman and Sharpshooters qualifications. And the the carbine has been fired at the required speed in follow-up tests.

Plus, as I note above, it is an easy shot for someone with training (which Oswald had).

In short, Lane's work served at the time to keep an important debate alive, but does it absolve Oswald? No. However, is it certain that Oswald was a "lone-gunman"? Not so much.

I suggest that interested parties (a) read more on the topic than Mark Lane provides and (b) most importantly -- go to Dealey Plaza, walk around the site, and spend some thoughtful time on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. Then make your own judgement.
-2 # VoxFox 2017-10-29 10:43
Not Big Dogs but the Deep State's Attack Dogs - aka CIA, who must have blackmailed Orangehead. There have been many months to pull those docs that risk further real exposures. So, this new delay is just to minimize the interest in the JFK killing.
-2 # Caliban 2017-10-29 17:01
Trump's promised release of JFK materials was (is) nothing but a lame effort to take negative attention off his own misbehavior and incompetence.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.