JFK Facts Podcast #108: What is the Point of the JFK Story in 2025?

hello everybody hey hello hey larry hey how you doing well um i don't know uh can i answer that question candidly i don't know how i'm doing these are turbulent times and uh you know trying to figure out get my bearings i'm not uh i'm not completely confident that i know what is happening in our world or why but i don't think i'm alone in that so definitely historically um uh historians are going to write about this error that we're living through right now it feels like 1933 right where tonight i was um i asked dick russell um jfk author um rfk advisor if he would come on the show tonight and he couldn't do it um but i was sorry about that because um the release of the rfk files is kind of the taking off point for me tonight got me thinking um you know uh we had to confront some issues at the mary farrell foundation about uh you know the release of these records like the release of the jfk records which included social security numbers the jfk files included the autopsy 18 autopsy photographs of rfk um which was quite disturbing to members of the kennedy family and created a whole controversy so wanted to talk about that because we face the question at mary farrell foundation do we post those pictures or not yeah i knew we know that trump asked bobby did did they did he or trump reach out to the rest of the family i mean as far as i can tell the only thing i've heard is that what rfk's comment that it was a tough decision but he had to prove that there was nothing to hide right so so let's just hold that jfk question there for a second because that's just part of the larger thing that was on my mind which is a continuation of the conversation we had last week left right and jfk why are we talking about jfk now and how does it how is it relevant to the political moment is it relevant is one question and how is it relevant you know and i think like a lot of things it comes down to well in american politics today american society today well does it help trump or hurt trump and uh you know i don't know i mean on the one hand the president's order of january 23rd was a great breakthrough in releasing jfk records which let us you know just keep reminding people all of these records could have and should have been released eight years ago and nothing we've seen, there is absolutely no justification in anything we've seen that this information couldn't have been released as the law required in October 2017. So why did it take eight years? And what does it mean that now we're finally getting to it? So Trump's murder is a huge breakthrough. I support it. Is that part? Is that supporting Trump's authoritarian project? where he's running roughshod over the rights of due process. You know, that's what I'm trying to figure out. And so that's why I want to throw it out to, you know, the group tonight and really focus the discussion on what does it mean? Why are we, why does it matter that we're pursuing this story? How does it fit into what's going on in American politics today? aside from the importance of the truth long ago, or rather, how does the truth long ago figure into our political realities today? So I wanted to invite people who have thoughts about that subject. Jeff, you, from your standpoint, from your perspective, if the only thing that happens is that the records are released and nothing else happens. How do you feel about that? Is that enough? I mean, is it just releasing the records or do we want, is there something that needs to be done by our government in response to the information that's disclosed? Right. Yeah. I think that's a very good question and it's what I'm wrestling with. I mean, I think that the implication of what we've learned and what we've pressed for is, you know, that we're saying there's CIA malfeasance here. There's an abuse of power. and um you know maybe the point of why we're doing this is to advance or consider what jfk was considering reorganizing the cia what harry truman proposed abolition of the clandestine service um kennedy and i think the some of the new documents about the president's foreign intelligence advisory board are very interesting because while Kennedy deferred his notion of reorganizing the CIA in 1961, as proposed by Arthur Schlesinger, the PIFIAB minutes suggest that the idea of reorganizing the CIA was still, you know, something that Kennedy wanted his people to talk about. So So is that the point, right? Is the point of talking about JFK to facilitate, to advocate abolition or reform of the CIA as contemplated by JFK and Truman? So that's one thing about, you know, what do we do without our government, right? The other thing that I think a lot of people are concerned about is, can this be an impotence to have the official conclusions of the government be changed because the all nuts are still going to be saying there's nothing here. Do we need some sort of formal response from the government? You know, so, I mean, it seems like it's a continuum of things that we, but if all that happens is that they dump the records and they say, okay, we're done to me, that's a disappointment. yeah yeah and and i i think my question is prompted by that exactly that that that there needs to be a point i mean why does this matter why why why does why are we paying attention to it that's the that's the question i'm i i'm throwing out there and i'm thinking about it especially because i've been writing about or thinking about rereading some of the dismissive reaction of these critics who didn't need but a minute to read 77,000 pages of material to conclude that there was absolutely nothing there and there was no point in even thinking about it. And this from our leading journalistic organs, what an anti-journalistic attitude. Yes. I mean, it's so anti, not even anti-journalistic, anti-legislative, right? These writers like Adam Gopnik of the New York Times and what's his name? Nagourney of the New York Times and A.O. Scott of the New York Times, you know, they never mention there's a law, you know, which sort of said these documents should have been released eight years ago. Like, they never mentioned that. It's like The law around these records doesn't interest them. What interests them is bad conspiracy theorists have said things to call into question the infallible conclusions of the Warren Commission. And it's like, at this late date, I mean, these elite media organizations wonder why they have credibility problems. I mean, it's like that you're not even willing to look at the new evidence that you know what's in 77,000 pages within, you know, 20 minutes. it's presumptuous it's arrogant and it's really ignorant so that's so that's what we confront so what is why are we saying something should be different i mean look what happened after watergate the media sort of read oh my god we didn't catch this and they and the whole genre of investigative reporters right became it's like there's not there's still not a reckoning with the media about what these revelations are showing. And so, again, it's part of the spectrum. It's what can the government do? What should our media be doing about this? And if all we end up is the records are disclosed, the New York Times continues to say there's a nothing burger here. You know, I mean, it's great that we saw this, but are we really much further along? right i i think there has to be a political point or a political result um as a result of this so this goes back to where you jeff jeff you started with was if if the only thing trump was trying to do like releasing the records okay now he's on to something else then he hasn't really I mean, I applaud him for doing this, but, you know, that's so- Right, right. And that's the question for Trump is his executive order is welcome. But if he just did it to get a few, you know, favorable news cycles and beat up on his perceived enemies in the federal government, is that sufficient for us who've been pursuing this story for decades? Right. No, you know, I don't think so. So we've got a bunch of people with their hands up. I want to take a couple of questions from the chat just so that we address those. And then we'll get to Mark and Jack and John in a second. And Don Little asks, are the RFK photos the same as what was reported in being in the possession of Angleton? Thank you, Don, for that question, because when I heard the story about the RFK autopsy photos, which, by the way, I have not looked at. I was immediately reminded of a very important story that I think was first reported in my book, my biography of James Angleton, The Ghost, which is when CIA officials searched Angleton's office in 1975, after he was fired, and they entered his office with some trepidation because they had no idea what the man had been doing for the past 20 years. they went through his files and what do they discover they discover that angleton had copies of the rfk autopsy photos so don are the rfk photos the same as what was reported in being in the possession of angleton i believe so i mean he had the autopsy photos that's what the cia officers who searched his offices reported um in 1975 and those are those photos were destroyed. But the point, the controversy about whether it was appropriate to release those records shouldn't obscure the fact that a top CIA official had those records in his possession. And to me, that story has almost always been prima facie evidence that Angleton didn't believe the official story of RFK's assassination. Do we know where those photographs, when you when you i know you haven't looked at them but there's a cover book page it's not the usual riff page but i'm wondering do we know if those that were released were from the angleton files or that the the national archives had them somewhere where you know i think we need to know the origin of where these photographs came from for your answer your question yeah no no it's it's a very good question. But to be, for Angleton to have gone to the effort to obtain these, I mean, if you believe the official story, why would you obtain them? You wouldn't have any need to see them. So prurient interest. Yeah, prurient interest maybe, or it's the CIA. Could you use them to blackmail somebody? you know who knows but the fact is the fact that he had them yes i mean what can you say it's creepy it's it's macabre it's suspicious you know and so this whole controversy about was it appropriate you know i think uh there's a question of the historic importance of these photos so you know people say well you know and i've i've gotten this on twitter when i said ah you know I wasn't in favor of that. And people said, oh, you know, you're opposing full disclosure. You know, we need the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This was a question that we faced at the Mary Farrell Foundation, right? We have processed and posted, and I was very happy today to announce that the Mary Farrell Foundation has posted all of the JFK records in searchable form. So they're really usable now in a way that you can't use them on the National Archive site. At the National Archive site, you can search JFK records one at a time. On Mary Farrell, you can search thousands of them at a time by name, by location, by any search term you want, and you can call on the whole collection. So that's a big step forward in JFK transparency. And right now, Rex Bradshaw, the president of the Mary Farrell Foundation and a programming genius, is processing the RFK files and they're going to be posted in searchable form soon. So the question was, will the foundation post the autopsy photos? And I asked Rex, what's your decision? What do you want? And he said, I don't want to post them. There's the gore factor. There's the personal privacy factor, which people in the family have cited. And the people who are really qualified to look at these photographs as evidence as opposed to a purient or lurid or macabre interest, those people have access to the photos. Mary Farrell Foundation doesn't need to promote further access to these photos to people who don't really have a need to do it. And you know what? I mean, I sympathize with that. I mean, yes, I believe in full disclosure and it's important. And I'm glad that people have access to these records, but everybody doesn't have to facilitate that in the name of transparency. To me, that's a kind of abstract or bogus version of transparency. We can be a little more. What is, so I'm, you know, I forget now. What did Mary Farrell do with the JFK records, the autopsy stuff? Did they post those? No. Rex said the same thing. People have access to those photos. And we welcome research from qualified medical professionals commenting on those. And in an article by a qualified medical professional about the autopsy, I would publish those photos. But only in that instance. There's a difference between using the photographs for a legitimate research public interest purpose and just making them available to, you know, any teenager who has never seen a dead body before. Like, that's not necessary. That's not transparency. That's just, you know, carelessness. We're probably going to have the same thing with MLK when they release those records. Yes, no. And the issue is going to arise again. um so um anyway that's what we've been grappling with um thank you for that's a consistent policy that's a good if you didn't do with jfk there's no reason not to do it with rfk yeah um but let's hear from some other people um starting with jack reed my old friend jack let me just give some credit here jack did outstanding work on the pre-assassination oswald file and the graphic that i have run on the site which charts how interest in oswald rises through the cia ranks from november 1959 to 1963 is it just a really admirable piece of kind of infographics well done So, Jack, we're always interested in your comments. What do you think about all of this? Yeah. So, you know, if you go back to the question of what would we be looking for, you know, at the end of this process, one of the things I don't think we've talked a lot about is some kind of strengthening of disclosure laws. And, you know, I come back to we've gotten a lot of documents and hopefully we're going to get more. But right now we're still dependent on like Congresswoman Luna and the task force to get things like the Joe Anides file. And, you know, we can't. There's no way to put pressure if we if we can't, you know, in the future, if we can't have strengthened disclosure laws. And if you think about all of the other, you know, the RFK and the, you know, 9-11 and things like that, if the one thing all of those different events have in common is everybody's going to look at this and say, well, you know, a lot of this stuff could have been disclosed a long time ago. Why wasn't it? And part of the reason why it wasn't is because researchers couldn't get to it. And so if there's one thing that I would hope that the task force would take out of all of the documents that get released and all of the hearings they hold and the roundtables is the need to strengthen either FOIA or rules around mandatory disclosure, whether it's at a certain point in years or something like that, so that researchers can do their job moving forward. Otherwise, this could happen again, and we wouldn't have any mechanism to get the documents. Yeah, and I think right now we focus on JFK because it's kind of the original bone of contention in public policy. And then RFK and MLK obviously have a certain place in historical memory. And then there's more recent controversies, 9-11, UFOs, and future controversies. you know, the war in Ukraine, the origins of COVID. And so, yeah, we do need a mechanism. I mean, the whole reason that Congress passed the JFK Records Act was because the Freedom of Information Act was too weak, you know. And so some version of the JFK Records Act, I think, you know, that might be the goal of all of this, right? An independent board that would have the authority to overrule the individual agencies and say you have to make what you have public. And that could be part of, Jeff, that could be part of the mandatory declassification process, the National Declassification Center. That place is broken, right? Yeah, no, I mean, and here's the thing, you know, if you go around Washington, nobody will disagree that the classification system is broken, you know, that 90% of what is classified doesn't need to be classified. That government agencies are addicted on secrecy because it enhances their power, not because it serves the public interest. So how could we get from here to a real dismantling of that system? I think that's what Jack is talking about. And I think what we can do is- I don't think that's on the table yet, but I think that's what we should get on the table, right? Right. The NDC, maybe the NDC becomes an independent commission. I know that's not favored right now, independent commissions, but it's within the narrow right now and it's broken. If that can be converted into a genuine independent vehicle we could use that existing structure now because look what happened with you with the mandatory declassification system process Yeah. Yeah, you just get put off forever. Yeah. Yeah. Mark Peck-Ruhl. Yeah. Hi. Hi, everyone. I want to go back to the question that you had asked. I guess that pretty much started your conversation, which is, does it matter why it matters? And I think most of us have people in our lives who are familiar with our interests in this area who periodically may say, OK, so great. What does it matter? And what I try and tell people is that, you know, if the official story is true, if Oswald killed the president and that was it, then it wouldn't matter. It would have no meaning other than any other historic event at the time. But if the official story is not true, as almost all but the most, I don't know what people would have to begrudgingly admit, it's not a story that ended in November 63. It's a story that's continued. It's an act that has continued every day since for generations now of executive branch employees, legislators, media people who have in large and small ways abrogated their responsibilities to the people of the country, to the country. itself to the institution so it's a it is a today's story it's not a 1963 or even 1960s story it's a today's story anyway that's that's kind of how i try to explain to people who ask me and it seems to at least make them stop and think for a second and say oh okay maybe i get what you're saying yeah um because it isn't like you know when we were kids the jfk assassination was the equivalent of world war one in terms of years of passage we're not saying the jfk assassination is not a purely historic event. It's still affecting our government. Right. The tentative. Oh, hi, Jeff. Thank you. Hi, everybody. I hate to be pessimistic, but it occurs to me that the questions you're asking belong to a totally different American polity. And the America you have, the state of politics you have in America at the moment, isn't capable of dealing with these questions or achieving the things you want so really what what you're calling for is some kind of radical reshaping of the american political landscape yeah you know i when you when you say are what polity am i talking to right about like open government laws or strengthening open government laws is is that like even a language that the government you know the electorate is interested in or capable of hearing or capable of understanding and if it isn't well then what do we do so i don't you know let me let me since since i don't know let me let me throw it back to you So, like, what should be the stated mission of JFK research, given our polity today? It's probably not a question for me to answer, not being American. But I think the one good thing about Trump, well, there's a couple of good things about Trump. I think he brings to a head the nascent state of politics in America and the Western world. He makes explicit a lot of things that were purely implicit. So at least he makes things naked and out in the open. But thinking about Trump, the other thing that I think he actually helps with the JFK question, one of the problems with the JFK assassination is that, you know, as people have said, it's unspeakable, it's unimaginable. If we think of the question as you pose it, and as I think most people accept it, that JFK was killed by his enemies within his own government, because they thought he was a traitor whose policy changes were so dangerous and so radical, that he had to be eliminated. You know, most people always think, well, that's crazy. You know, that's a, it must be a conspiracy theory because it's so impossible. Trump is someone who brings that question back into play, because I would imagine there are a lot of people now who see Trump as someone who is so dangerous, whose policies are so radical, and that everything he does is such an affront to a particular vision of America, that he has to be eliminated. Do you understand the, so he sort of reframes that question for a different generation. And I've heard from several Trump supporters who are subscribers to JFK saying, expressing this view that just as Kennedy was unacceptable to factions, powerful factions in the US government, so Trump is unacceptable. And just as JFK was eliminated, So they will attempt to eliminate Trump. And, you know, that's not to say that, you know, what happened at the assassination against Trump was motivated by his enemies in the government. But, you know, it's when I get that argument, it's not an argument that I can dismiss easily, you know, because, you know, it has it has a coherence. It has a it has a substance to it. Trump has aroused the, you know, fundamental divisions. And I think, you know, your point about Trump exposing realities, you know, Trump's, you know, Trump's take on the American empire that, you know, we have an empire that's oriented towards the goals of a certain elite. And Trump says, no, we're going to take and orient that to, you know, another set of goals, which is my personal enrichment or my personal vision of how the world should be. You know, well, that's calling into question the empire. And, you know, the empire is in shaky state right now. A major, you know, commercial challenge from China. two big wars in Ukraine and Gaza that we are funding, not fighting, but funding. And so, you know, can this, can this world of, you know, can the, what kind of empire are we going to have? Are we going to have the old kind of empire? Are we going to have a new kind of Trump empire, are we going to have something else? I think that's kind of the question that's up for grabs now. Jeff, the whole polity question, I want to go back to that. Was he saying that, and I forget our questioner's name. John, okay. Hi. Whenever the Congress changes, we end up with these investigations of the other party. Is that what you're kind of referring to, that it's really impossible to have a neutral, independent analysis of our government. I mean, I'm just trying to figure out, because even the church committee, they were torn by, you know, I mean, as much as whatever they produced, they still did it. There was tremendous friction between the Republicans and Democrats, and things are obviously worse now. I'm just trying to figure out what you're, when you say a polity, are you saying that the political, the way Congress and the presidency is set up now, this is just not possible? Or that maybe the independent, having an independent body that is given the authority to make true independent decisions is something that's potentially useful? Yeah, I think your whole system is so utterly broken. I mean, the point with Trump is that he's an unelectable candidate. So the only way you can get him elected is if the other side is just so dysfunctional, that they're not even capable of running an even probable candidate and a decent campaign. But then also, if you just look at all the other things that are going on at the moment, And it doesn't matter whether it's WikiLeaks or Snowden or, you know, just the recent things that have happened since the election of Trump. There's no process. There's certainly no democratic process. There's no input from other avenues of government like the Supreme Court. Anything will just be overridden to suit immediate objectives. So there's no functioning polity. A lot of what's happening, you know, our country has always operated on norms. And there was always this assumption that, you know, if a court issues a decision, they were going to listen, the political elected parties were going to listen to it. And so we're now in the situation where potentially this norm is no longer going to happen. And then what is going to be the result of that? So we were so much, our country was so much built on this like notion that people were just going to honor norms. Right. And what are they in the end? Let's go on to hear from. You can look at the hearing that you testified at. Just look at the state of the people who participated in that. Look at the questions. Look at the integrity of the questions. Look at the spirit that people engaged with. I think that tells you everything you need to know. Yeah, I mean, the fact that Democrats, the party of JFK, really had no comment. or perspective on 60 years of secrecy or the causes of his death or the different conclusions of different investigations. I mean, they had nothing. They said it was bad that people's social security numbers were released, which that's true. Everybody agrees with that. That was a bad decision. That was it about an iconic liberal president? So to me, that really showed that this loss of historic memory that, you know, Kennedy's just some, some guy who, you know, got mugged on the street and, you know, sorry, Jackie, you know, no big deal. Right. I mean, that's the attitude of our press. Sorry, Jackie, you know, we kind of screwed up, you know, well, we won't do it next time, you know, and, and so of course people treat that with contempt. When you are treated with contempt, your response is to respond with contempt. Let's hear from Jason Albrecht. Hi, thank you for taking my question. I just actually had two brief questions. One was just the status of the George Joannides files being released, as well as the William Harvey relevant files relating to his itinerary, his travel plans, or travel itinerary during that time. and oh sorry so i can respond to that specifically but one what else uh yeah just the other quick actually is just to add to what you guys were just discussing was that i think a lot of the the nothing burger coverage was also i think 60 years of pent-up theories because the files were were held secret for so long and are still being held secret that there's been 60 years of so many different theories that the reality isn't going to once they're all released won't live up to the fantasies or the different sort of fan fictions and i don't mean all of them i just mean the collective discourse over 60 years that the reality is going to be much more complicated and much more of a more boring reality that there's going to probably be never one conclusive answer there's never going to be a file that says so and so was hired and was in this window and on this behind in this location and so-and-so was hired because they would never keep that on paper. But that was just my... No, not only will we not get that, but that will not be necessary to change the historical consensus. Congresswoman Luna has asked CIA Director Ratcliffe about the Harvey and the Joe Anides files, and we expect an answer in a week. So we're on the case. And, you know, to me, that's progress. The CIA director has to deal with this request from a member of his own party and a member of his own administration. And, you know, we'll see, are they capable of full disclosure in these areas or not? And we're very close to knowing an answer to that question, a question that we have not been able to answer, you know, for 30 years before. So I like that. I, you know, I appreciate Luna's leadership in this case. And, you know, I'm optimistic. It's the CIA. You never know, you know, what you're going to get. deception, false statements, humbuggery, deflection, conspiracy theories, character assassination are always a possibility. So we'll see what happens. Tim Harmon. Hi. I respect all these ideas about what might come out of if we solved this case, if we really found the answers to these things. But I'm a retired journalist, and I think of it in journalistic terms. We always, when we were going after an investigative story, we were trying to find out what someone was hiding. We didn't say, well, we're trying to find this out because then we will achieve this other thing. We just wanted to know what the hell was going on. And I think there's we we maybe don't put enough value on the fact that the simple search for truth in a case like this is is the most important thing. I mean, but people have wanted to know what really happened. It pulls all of us together across the political spectrum. It transcends any particular agenda that you have. You know, I mean, historians don't keep studying Abraham Lincoln because they remember Abraham Lincoln or something. They just know it's important to get the historical record straight. And I think getting this straight will have other things that other benefits. But we don't have to figure out what those are going to be. All we have to do is figure out what the hell happened here. And we know, I think everybody who's in this and on this chat knows that something very important has been covered up. We just don't know what it is yet. Yeah. No. So, Tim, you know, I really appreciate what you're saying, because, you know, that that's the way I felt. Right. I mean, regardless of the political implications or, you know, are you conservative and in favor of this? Are you liberal in favor of this? You know, whatever reason you're in favor of it, we're all on the same page in that regard. And so in that way, I've been very like reluctant to I don't want to bring it any anything else into it. You know, when I read what Congresswoman Luna says about mass deportation, you know, I disagree strongly. I'm going to go and argue with her about that because, you know, that's more important than JFK. if she's being proactive and aggressive in a full jfk disclosure posture well then i'll work with her and i don't care about her politics but you know we're in a fraught political moment and people have strong feelings about this stuff and so is that sufficient to the moment you know i think what you're saying tim is yeah just the truth matters don't worry about where the chips fall right exactly exactly tim you guys i mean i i was i i was a journalist for two years just part-time i nothing like you guys but even in my level i can remember editors getting pressure from sponsors you know from the newspaper supporters to try to don't go this direction yeah and and and so i mean so journalism i mean if you if you were truly independent you can pursue it but look you know we know that the NBC and CBS were supporting the Warren commission and right. And I just, right. And so how do you like, but now journalism seems even more like it's like less of a journalism seems now to be more, they're looking for a particular answer as opposed to what Tim was saying and what Jeff, your whole career has been about, is about just following the facts. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, what sells is opinion, engagement, outrage, provocation, insults, flame wars, all of that, you know, that's, you know, monetarily, that's extremely lucrative. And it's very destructive towards trying to forge consensus or just our media system is not set up for it, you know, in any way. To the opposite. Our media system is set up to impede us and frustrate us and create lots of doubt and disputation. Diane Shoemaker, what do you think? What order are you going in? Okay. I have a question, just a technical question about, so I'm interested in doing these reforms of the Freedom of Information Act to have this information more accessible i mean we can't we shouldn't have to have a a blockbuster movie and an act of congress every time we want to see some records so i'm just wondering um because i the only time i've searched a record it was it was about the dakota wars and it was one document and it cost me like 35 40 for one document and it took you know months before i got it i'm just wondering if there's do you what what's unique about this situation is we're getting the documents for free well did you have to pay did you have to pay every single time in the past you wanted a document on JFK I'm just wondering have you been paying all these years for documents no no I mean we you know the documents were scanned and available on Mary Farrell so you know we have the technological capability to make all of these documents available to everybody for basically nothing, right? I mean, you can get all of the new JFK documents searchable on Mary Farrell. You can do like five or six searches for nothing, and then you got to pay 35 bucks. But that actually does have a fee waiver provision in it. So if you qualify, you can get a fee waiver. But that's so there's two issues. One is the cost of getting the documents. But there is a waiver provision. But the second thing, and more importantly, is the exemptions from the obligations to disclose public documents. I guess I would say in response to your question and to what somebody said earlier, the Freedom of Information Act, I mean, it's just too weak. We need a, you know, the JFK Records Act was created because the Freedom of Information Act was too weak. We need to standardize the JFK Records approach, an independent board. And this is what I will recommend to Luna is, you know, what should the task force recommend? The task force should recommend an independent board that has the authority to investigate controversies involving federal governments and declassify federal records over the objections of those agencies. And so the thing that the JFK Act did was it imposed standards for overruling well standards that the agencies had to comply with in order to postpone records whereas FOIA just says national security there a national security exemption And it doesn't provide any guidance for that exemption. And so the agencies, the courts just honor the request and then also the law enforcement exemption and then the deliberative process exemption. Those three are the big ones. And the JFK Act basically said, you can only postpone if you can meet these criteria. Now, you know, in our experience with the Mary Farrell litigation, the courts have been very lenient with that. But at least it has standards that have to be complied with. But could they also put in years, like after 30 years or 40 years, it still has to be released? There's a provision for that right now, and it's routinely ignored. Right. The president has an executive order. The last one at issue one was Obama. And so there's been a series of executive orders interpreting the National Security Act. It originally was 50 years. Now, after 25 years, I think there's a presumption of disclosure unless the agency decides that it has to still withhold. So that's the reason why we have the whole mandatory declassification system is broken, because these records should be disclosed, but they're not being disclosed. There's a 25-year law on the books right now, and it's just, it's defunct. It doesn't function. It doesn't, it has no reality governing documents that are more than 25 years. It applies to some of them. It doesn't apply to others, depending on whatever the agencies want. And there was this in 1999, the CIA Office of General Counsel issued a lessons learned memo. And it was it was discussing the differences between the JFK Act and the normal process and how, you know, they really wanted to make sure that never happened again. And that's what they've gotten. And so but but there's so you have the you have the National Security Act, which provides the ground rules for giving the president the authority, statutorily as well as constitutionally, to classify records. And the presidents issue executive orders that instruct the agencies, the grounds upon which they can classify records. But they're so loose and goosey. You know, Clinton loosened it up. Reagan tightened it. Bush tightened it. Obama tried to loosen it up. None of it really made a difference in the overall thing. Colin Davey. Yes, thank you. Thanks for all your work. I was curious, I know you're very expert on the Mexican-Mexico City visit. Some researchers are questioning whether Oswald really went to Mexico City. I'm agnostic on this, but I know some people have very strong opinions. And I guess the main case being they don't have photos. The photos they have look like don't look like him. And in the meantime, there was some Oswald in Dallas doing things at the same time, possibly even the visit with that woman as Leon Oswald. So do you have comments or opinion? Yeah, I dealt with this in my book, Our Man in Mexico, in 2008. I've studied it carefully for 20 years, considered all of the evidence. I think Oswald was in Mexico City. The Dallas Oswald was in Mexico City. I think the preponderance of evidence supports that. The fact that David Phillips, a well-known bullshit artist, once said something to the contrary, not really strong evidence. I think there is strong evidence that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, but that doesn't, that's not evidence that he wasn't there himself, only that somebody, you know, imitated him or impersonated him on the phone. So, you know, yeah, that's, that, that's my bottom line about Oswald in Mexico City. You know, is there conclusive proof he wasn't there? I don't think so. I think the preponderance of evidence shows he was there. That's certainly what the people who, the consensus of the people who had personal dealings with him at the time. James Wilkinson. I just wanted to call to attention one little detail. You know, when you talk about the three senior CIA officials that, you know, lied under oath to JFK investigators, I agree. But in looking over like Richard Helms's answer to the, you know, to Alan Dulles, the Warren Commission, It seems like, I mean, of course, he's dead. It's kind of moot. But it seems like they would argue, and I would expect the agency if they were, you know, called to the mat to respond, that it was a truthful response because he was referring to information that was provided by the State Department. There's like that qualifier there. Yeah. And to that argument, I say, nice try. Okay. Helms' testimony was when asked, did you receive adequate information from the State Department? Helms said, McCone said, we had very little information in our files. Okay. They had 194 pages. So McCone was clearly wrong. But McCone probably didn't know because he was an outsider to the agency, not a career CIA guy. He was totally dependent on him. So let's leave McCone aside. If he lied, it was inadvertently. When Helms said it was probably minimal, let's say he was referring just to the State Department. There were 12 State Department reports on Oswald in the file. OK, so if Helms's argument is 194 pages, no, I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the 12 that were 100 paid, and that was minimal. Is that the argument? Is that the argument of Fred Litwin? Is that the argument of the CIA's pro bono lawyers in the press? That is not a very good argument, because even if it were just the 12 State Department reports that he was referring to, no truthful answer would say that was minimal information. So that argument, it's an easily debunked argument. You have to also look at what was going on. Alan Dulles was taking the deficit. Yeah, the whole line of questioning is leading, designed to lay the blame on, you know. Exactly. He was giving a hint to Helms to blame it on the State Department. and he would so dulles is asking questions of helms and mccone about a time period when they he was the one that was in charge so so this whole thing it was a whole setup that whole you can't take that you can't take the answers in that deposition at face value even if you take them at face value it's false testimony i mean it's clearly in bad faith for the reasons you just both outlined. I would just say in terms of like, you know, obviously perjury, even qualifying with probably and minimal gives them a lot of wiggle room, you know? No, no, no. I always thought Helms was a brilliant witness. Brilliant. There was no better exponent of the CIA's point of view than Dick Helms. Imperious, authoritative, friendly, you know, you name it. He could he could modulate himself. And, and the insertion of that word, probably, when asked, how much information do you have about the man who supposedly blew off the head of the president? And he says, it was probably minimal, like, he doesn't really know. To me, that was Helms protecting himself against a perjury charge. Absolutely. Qualified. Yeah. Dr. Nova. Hey, hello gentlemen um i had a i guess maybe a two-part question um owing to something that you guys were talking about last week with schellenberger you guys were talking about things that get stuck in the memory hole uh how do you guys think would be the best way to kind of go about fomenting a re-examination of you know uh some of the conclusions that at one time may have sounded kind of strange but if you look at some of the things like some of the conclusions that made Brussels or Jim Garrison or Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, like things that used to sound kind of kooky. Like how do we kind of foment a reexamination of that to think, well, maybe some of it in light of what we've learned over the last couple of months isn't so strange. And the second part, I was wondering just kind of more in the current vein when we talk about like USAID and things like that being an arm of an intelligence agency. This is not new news. You know, John's John Stockdale was CIA whistleblower in the 80s and talked a lot about this. And that was actually my question is I've never seen anything about him being dead. Does anybody know if he's still alive or what happened to him? You know, good question on that. Stockwell, I don't know. I don't know what happened to him. He certainly hasn't been active or, you know, made his views known in any time recently that I know of. In terms of how do you know, how do you change the consensus? I mean, I wake up every day and I post a story on JFK facts. That's what I do. You know, like, I don't know what else to do. You know, just put the information out there, make it available to people. I think that, you know, one thing that we see in this both defensive and dismissive attitude about the mainstream press is they're kind of threatened by what they don't know, you know, like the rising tide of knowledge of the general population is very disconcerting to them because it's not a conspiracy theory. It's just like baseline knowledge of the case. Like the Dallas doctors, you know, they pretty much all thought Kennedy been shot by a killed by a shot from the front, you know, like, there's not a lot of doubt about that. You know, you can go see him on what the doctors saw, you know, the findings of the review board about the medical testimony about the autopsy photographs being called. You know, it's pretty self evident. So I look for, I look for the rising tide of knowledge to, you know, set the record straight. You know, and if you think about it, the complete record of Kennedy's assassination, not, you know, you can't get the whole record from a site like Mary Farrell, but you can get a lot of it. You can get a million of the three million pages of JFK records that the National Archives has. You can get a million of them on Mary Farrell today. So, you know, a capable, competent student who's paying attention and wants to understand the case, you know, they can get access to, you know, a lot of information. That has only been true for 20 years. Access to the historical record of the Kennedy assassination was really up to a handful of gatekeepers in the investigative commissions that had access to the records, to journalists in Washington, D.C., who had access to officials who knew about the records, and to a handful of researchers who could actually go to Washington and look at the records. Now, you know, millions of people can look at these records, and that's going to make a difference in the long run, you know. Now, yes, does that invite, you know, mass stupidity? Of course. I mean, we see that on social media every day. But it also leads to mass knowledge. And so I'm an optimist in that score. You know, I think as people, as the story, the full story, all in all of its details, no matter how you interpret it, as it becomes available to people, that's going to make a difference in what the cultural consensus around AFK is. So thanks, Dr. Nobun. Harry, we always hear from you. Hi. Yeah. What's up, everybody? And I wanted to thank Larry, Jeff, and Shav for all the great work they've been doing. I've got a couple of ideas about what we should do going forward. Some of them are kind of quixotic. One would be the establishment of a truth commission of scholars, journalists, elected officials to document the new JFK facts as we now understand them, given the new evidence of the CIA complicity in the JFK assassination. A second thing, a second thought would be to demand a CIA response to the new JFK facts, one way or the other. I mean, these could be recommendations to Luna or maybe another format. format. Three, the Truth Commission would call for a major transformation of the CIA, whether the specific reforms could be worked out, and might even include how the CIA and the military have instilled a certain fear in our elite policymakers, which helped fuel the forever war the forever war machine so those are just some thoughts that i have that i wanted to convey yeah i i hear you harry and i think that my thinking is going along those lines that the meaning of this story has to be reform of our intelligence intervention system you know I come back to JFK's strategy for peace, which he talked about in his American University piece. You know, that's something we don't have now. You know, Donald Trump doesn't have a strategy for peace. Joe Biden didn't have a strategy for peace. Barack Obama didn't have a strategy for peace. You know, Barack Obama figured out he had to make his peace with these guys, and he did. You know, he made his peace with the CIA. Biden, same thing. Trump, same thing. So what we've lost is Kennedy's vision of a strategy for peace. And the point of talking about his death and its meaning, I think has to come back to that that's what we lost with his death was the strategy for peace. absolutely now now now we have a system geared for war right you know we had a conflict in Ukraine could have been solved by diplomacy could have been easily not easily but could have been solved by diplomacy by people who were determined to avoid war Jeffrey I got a couple questions and also an idea one thing I would like to see speaking of the Luna task force I would like to have you contact her and i suggest that everybody that's going to be on the panel see uh um jfk revisited uh destiny betrayed or sorry um no through the looking glass because one of the questions that came up was the provenance of the magic bullet and i think that would give everybody on the same page that's a suggestion another suggestion is to have everybody watch um mark Lane's 1966 version there's two versions he updated it rushed to judgment and these are people that had testimony that wasn't called for by the Warren Commission so I just throw that as a suggestion to get everybody on the same page so at least they have a common ground especially on the Providence issue the Kevin Costner in the JFK movie I wouldn't have him watch the whole JFK movie but i would ask to have them watch the two minute version where kevin costner describes the flight of the magic bullet uh i think that's pretty funny actually yeah yeah a signful episode with the second spitter yeah um a couple other quick questions do you know walt brown and his book, The Warren Omission? I know, Walt, yeah. His book, The Warren Omission, you know, kind of, he was so damn thorough and documented who was at the commission meeting, what the questions were, and so that's just a good reference book. Yes, I agree. Then a second question to you and your knowledge on Harold Weisberg. I know you've spoken about having Gerald Posner on, so I'm assuming that you may be familiar with his book, Case Closed, that Harold Weisberg wrote. But my question about Harold Weisberg files, and this is my last question, is the, are his files also accessible? Yes. His files are available at the Hood College. There's a collection, online collection of the Harold Weisberg papers at Hood College. So that's where you can find it. can find you. David Fenkel. Good evening, everybody. Jeff, when you were talking about the different presidents who had planned for peace, and I think you could really make the argument, and this kind of ties back to the original question of the night, about why JFK still matters today, is that he was probably, maybe with the exception of Jimmy Carter, the last president that really was different in that respect. All the others, Democrats and Republicans, as you point out, from LBJ through Donald Trump, do not have plans for peace. And I wonder if you think that the Kennedy assassination, in some ways, cowed all of his successors against going against the grain in that way. I think the lack of accountability gave the faction, the most aggressive interventionist factions in the U.S. government, when there was no accountability around Kennedy, they had impunity and anything was possible. If the CIA had been made to take a price for the atrocious counterintelligence failure in Dallas, that a man who may have been watching for four years carefully, top CIA officials, monitoring his every move. I had to laugh when I testified in Congress and Spy Talk, the Spy Talk publication said, oh, there was nothing to what Morley said because Oswald wasn't constantly surveilled from November 1959 to November 1963. And I went back and looked. Between November 1959 and 1963, I think this is an accurate statement. There's only a few months in those four years where the CIA did not have a current mailing address or physical address for Lee Harvey Oswald. in the course of those four years, they knew his whereabouts pretty much constantly in that whole period. Thank you for coming on. And let's just thank Chad for his terrific reporting on JFK Facts. Yes. Continued in excellent. And I have to tell you, everybody, there's more to come. Chad's got a great piece on the runway right now. So talk to us, Chad. Thanks, Jeff. I know that you've seen because I saw you in the draft and I immediately got out because, you know, you don't want to. I just wanted to say something. I mean, it's not really a question, but I mean, I watched, re-watched something very recently, which was a 2013 appearance by a group of people including Rex Bradford But there they also mark lane was there i think it was at duquesne university in 2013 and one of the people on that panel i think it were six of them was dan hardway who was a researcher and investigator for the house select committee on assassinations and a self-described hillbilly although he's obviously a really brilliant guy and he at the at the end said I want to make the case for the cynics you know somebody has to do it and I'm going to do it and he made a very interesting point because much of the discussion revolved around the release of records and he said when he was you know when he was working on this investigation and he was young he was a law student he must have been in his early to mid 20s he said there was like a cuban cultural affairs represented there were no diplomatic relations so there was some kind of cuban cultural affairs you know it was probably unofficial but like attache and he said that they either they brought them coffee and maybe donuts i don't know or they sent it over or whatever but he said that parked on that street was a um a truck and it had it was some company and the initials were sia and he made a joke out of it i can't remember what it stood for he said but they were obviously monitoring them um and he said you know has anyone ever seen a document about that uh surveillance uh and he said you know and obviously no one had and he said and you won't uh and so his point was you know we're not going to see you know the the the the crux of what we're looking for and he also said at the same time i don't think a congressional committee is the ideal or even the right model to get at the truth i don't he didn't suggest one but you know he just because of experience as the house select committee on assassinations was such a you know it they were confounded they were foiled and so I mean the point that I I want to make because there's been a lot of discussion about Trump here and I think for Trump this issue is mostly a distraction uh he probably made a promise maybe to Bobby Kennedy I don't know or he knew at least that it was a popular issue that he could say yes I'm going to release everything and then to his credit he he did the executive order but he hasn't really focused on it and he's actually said publicly i've always thought that oswald was responsible but that he had help so i mean it's kind of sort of hopeful but for those of us who don't think that that lee harvey oswald was um was even on the sixth floor i mean i count myself among them where what it does is it highlights uh an issue which which i think still is the elephant in the room it's hanging over, which is that there's a confrontation that's coming up. And the confrontation is going to be between people like Luna and maybe even John Ratcliffe who want to do the right thing. I mean, I'm sure she wants to succeed in what she's doing. And she's gotten five out of the 15 JFK facts, most wanted articles. That's not nothing, but that's not you know the key and if this is not a fishing expedition if we really want the truth then we have to face the fact that there's something really fundamental is going on i have this kind of philosophical idea that the problem will be will go to the the heart of the integrity of the american uh sort of nation state and by that i mean i know this seems philosophical we you know, if you talk about sovereignty, this concept is thrown around a lot, you know, they talk about, you know, restoring Ukraine's sovereignty. I mean, I know Ukraine very well, I would not describe it as a country that's ever really had sovereignty in the Max Weber sense of a monopoly of violence within its borders. I mean, I just, it's never been that it's sort of a construct of the Soviet Union. So what this may come down to is the concept of sovereignty resting within something that is outside of the formal sort of authorities. I won't make any secret of the fact, and I think I made this, I mean, I didn't express an opinion in the piece I wrote about the Schlesinger memo. But I do think that the British model of intelligence is probably more civilized, because you don't want to think of your ultimate sovereign, you know, because, of course, people talk about Trump being some kind of authoritarian, you know, and he's, he's alarming, and he's brash, and, you know, he definitely disarms people, you know, by his appearance and his speech. But he may not know, you know, look, pal, I mean, you know, you may, You have power, but you don't have all the power. And there's something there that's protecting. It's guarding, it's protecting, it's concealing something that it was able to do. And I'll just borrow from Bob Dylan, who I think, I mean, I don't even think he coined the phrase, but this magic trick that was pulled off on November 22nd, 1963. Whatever happened then, it's just not what we've been told. And if this many generations on anyone knows the truth, and it's probably a select group of people whose faces and names we don't know, they're going to fight tooth and nail. Because ultimately, and someone else was talking about the model of the state, the Australian gentleman. Well, I'm saying Australian because he had an Australian accent and I've lost him now. But he was saying, you know, the American polity is, you know, is of such a nature that it doesn't lend itself to disclosing something like this. So we're coming now to the wire here. I'm encouraged. I don't want to be pessimistic. I don't want to be a total Dan Hardway cynic. I like his style of intellectual cynicism. But at the same time, I mean, you know, we're coming up to it. And I know that I can tell you that I know people that sit in the room with the president. And I will tell you that the president is incurious about the answer about the Kennedy assassination. He's agnostic and he feels he's done his he's ordered the records released. And now he's he feel he's basically done with what he has to do. So whether he's going to be pressured, I don't know. But I know that I've spoken to Roger Stone, who has dinner regularly with the president. And when I mentioned to him about his statement the other day, you know, about Oswald, he said the president is very frustrating on this issue. But he is, this is not an important issue to him. I mean, he's indifferent about the implications of the Kennedy assassination. And I don't mean that as a criticism of him. I'm just saying, this was not a, never a big issue to him. Right. But I mean, he's going to he's going to find out. I mean, I agree. I'm sure you're right. It's like a distraction. It's like a nuisance at this point. It's like, well, but it is fundamental to the nature of the American state. state. If you think about it, just the fact that we're eight years past the statutory deadline, right, when Congress basically envisioned that there would be a couple of hundred documents withheld, and instead there were 15,000, which over eight years was whittled down to about 2,500. Although, and I should say here, right now, we're not sure how many of the 2,500 documents that were supposedly still had redactions, how many of them actually have been released. It's clearly not all of them. And we're trying to figure out exactly what percentage it is. So, you know, we don't even know for sure. When I saw the figures that Rex was quoting me, and these need to be checked, maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but we're not at all sure that the 2,500 plus documents that were announced to have redactions before March 18th, how many of those are now public knowledge we don't know we don't have i came across a document last night that's still missing a page yeah yeah you know it's like um mark lobel had his hand up mark did you go away oh but chad i just want to make sure i i i don't want anyone to take it i'm not criticizing the president i'm just saying that right now he's kind of indifferent to the to the he doesn't he's not as invested in this as we are and he thinks he kind of gave his instructions and they're being followed and at some point it may come back to him but he's as a fellow uh sort of rfk junior supporter i think you would probably be willing to entertain the idea that this may actually be we don't know but all of this executive order and everything may be a result of a sort of political quid pro quo oh yeah yeah yeah for the coalition i mean i don't have any proof of that but i certainly think it's credible that that happened i'm glad that bobby kennedy is in the administration i mean i know a lot of people this was one of the theorists but anybody who's a jfk researcher should be used to that accusation. So this is one of the inducements to get him to endorse Trump. Right. I mean, I think it's likely that RFK Jr. extracted some kind of concessions. One was to be in the cabinet to do his public health thing. But I think that the declassification on his uncle and his father, and for all I know, Martin Luther King as well, may have figured out the equation. It doesn't make it an issue near and dear to Trump's heart. And I don't think it ever was. But, you know, at some point, some, you know, I don't, I've never met Trump, but I sort of get the feeling that Trump is the type of person who, you know, issues come around full circle. I don't know how long it takes, but at some point, he wants someone to come back and tell him what's going on. He's not going to think about it all the time. It's just not the way it works. It's Tulsi Gabbard, or it's John Ratcliffe, or it might even be a member of Congress. I don't know what sort of rapport he has with Anna Luna. I hope it's a good one. But Chad, I want you to, I want to disabuse you of the notion that the assassination of President Kennedy, the answers to the question, weirdly, is more important to us than to Bobby. They have kind of, you know, he didn't even think about it much until 2004 when David Talbot sat down with him. But that's quite a long time, Larry. I mean, that's more than 20 years. Right now, he is so focused on HHS, right? I mean, this is not this is not a high. He's saying he is definitely staying out of it. Yes. Yes. Yeah. This is not, you know, which is actually appropriate because he does have a conflict of interest. He's got a big feud with his family, which that's his business. But it's not really relevant to JFK records. You know, like whether the family disagrees about these records or not, that's not germane to the law. the law says they should all be made public so you know to the to the extent we don't have to deal with the kennedy family feud let's not okay and the fact that he's not bringing that into this that's good that's why i i i was you know i was not comfortable with him releasing the the autopsy photographs of his father obviously he's got the right to me it seemed like if that was my family and somebody in my family disagreed strongly with me you know i would defer to them just because that you know to me it felt like he was trying to be mean to his family because they've been mean to him and it's like i've been in family feuds before and you know what it's miserable business and like it's nobody's business and you try and get out of it as soon as you can it's sort of a grudge it's sort of a grudge yeah yeah and and and it doesn't have anything to do with the matter at hand it's not even it's not even a grudge he just this is what he wants and you know he i don't i don't believe that he consulted with his siblings about this no that's yeah that's yeah right but but i just just chad the point is that you know in the in the order of things this is probably five or six it's not that you know that he's lived with the death of his uncle and his father for 50 60 years so you know whenever i speak to him you know it's like this is not a this has not been a priority to him um we've been talking for and more than an hour if anybody else has a question or comment um now's the time to speak because otherwise we are going to wrap it up. James, is that a new question you have? Yeah, it is. I'll try to be quick. Sure, go ahead. Yeah, just before I do, though, yeah, I mean, it would be one thing in terms of what you were just saying about the autopsy stuff if there wasn't an impeccable, you know, coroner's report that has all the information. I think you could make a different argument about the JFK autopsy photos, given what we've learned, you know, in the 90s with the ARB and, you know, potential, you know, meddling with that. But I was just going to ask, I'm sure you're familiar with, do you see any merit at all in Vincent Salandria's false mystery hypothesis? I know it seems like something that you've kind of butted up against in general. But I mean, you know, once the Zapruder film came out, you know, you've got Connolly being hit less than two seconds after Kennedy was. It's kind of game over in a certain sense. I'm just kind of curious if you see any merit at all to that kind of stance. I mean, I mean, that's what Vincent Slandria said. You know, the problem is people look at the Zabruder film and they say, yeah, that's proof positive. The guy got hit by a shot from behind and you can't talk them out of it. They sincerely believe it. They'll bring a whole bunch of, you know, scientific statistical, you know, arguments to bear on it. So is Vincent Slandria right? I mean, not according to those people. So, Jeff, there's a I'm sorry, James, Jim. This has been a topic on the education forum this week about how many people here are really sort of disinformation people that are kind of just creating these issues for people to go down rabbit holes and create tension and fighting within the community. And so everything that distracts gets you away from getting to the answer. yeah and so you have crazy ideas that are touted by people and then people run off with them and their energy is distracted yeah um i think that's it jeff uh anybody else got a a final one wants to enlarge on your jordan at the chat says can you enlarge on your answer above Jeff, please provide context for that question. I don't know what they're talking about. Maybe, Jordan, you want to come on or whoever was the other person? Amplify in the chat. You said that Roger Stone had talked to you about the if you knew what I knew. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Okay, yeah. Yeah. Trump said when asked, why didn't you release all the JFK files? He's very defensive. He doesn't have a good explanation because he totally caved to the CIA, his supposed enemies in the deep state, which he can never admit to a friend. And he says, oh, if you had seen what I had seen, you wouldn't have released them either. Okay. Well, what's the evidence that Trump ever looked at a JFK file. There's none. If he ever saw something that was incriminating towards the CIA, why wouldn't he make it public? He's the president. They're his enemies. So he never did that. So that makes me think he doesn't have any evidence. I don't think he even looked at a JFK record. There's no evidence that he ever did. He never cited one. There's no evidence that he was ever in possession of one. So I think that it's Trump, you know, blowing smoke and, you know, bullshitting the way he often does. So I don't put any stock in the, oh, if you had seen what I had seen story. I think it's a bunch of blarney. The documents that are produced in my lawsuit for the records and the correspondence relating to the Trump post- Larry, Larry, Larry. That's not about Trump. That's about the National Archives. Okay. No, I'm saying that there's no evidence. Yes, there's no evidence that Trump ever saw any JFK records. So his claims about he saw some JFK records, there's no reason to believe it. I think the answer to that truthful answer is what he told Tucker Carlson in January, that Mike Pompeo asked him to postpone, and he agreed. And later on, he got embarrassed. Yeah. Dr. Nova, one last question. Comment. Actually, it's just a question. When you talked to Representative Luna, was there any ask or any movement about getting Cleveland Cram's history of Angleton declassified? And if that wasn't talked about, just because of my own curiosity, would sending her letters or something to that effect do anything? you know we presented a list of documents that were not the only documents but just kind of a representative sample of things that were interesting that we hope to obtain and we continue to be in communication about that the thing about cleveland tram's records about james angleton is the review board did see those jeremy gunn was given access to all of that material And he released and declassified a bunch of it, which you can find on Mary Farrell if you search for extracts of CIA history. So, you know, did Jeremy Gunn leave out JFK essential material from that? Those documents? I don't think so. Would it be worthwhile to go back and demand that all of that be released in addition to what Jeremy Gunn did? I mean, we live in the realm of the possible. When I ask Luna, can you find this document? I want to be able to say, tell somebody at the CIA to go to shelf 24, box 13, folder 7. That's where it is. I'm not sending people on fishing expeditions. I'm not doing wish lists. When I ask somebody to go see something, it's something that we know exists, that we haven't seen before. When it comes to Cleveland KM's study of Angleton, we have seen it before. Thank you. Okay, thank you everybody for attending. We do this every Thursday night at 8pm Eastern, and we'll be back again next week. Congress is back next week, right from recess? Congress will be back next week, yes. And I'm hoping, Luna has told me that we're going to get some response from the CIA next week on key questions. So looking forward to that and, you know, optimistic. Thank you.