It’s not about people going to jail. It will be embarrassing and disgrace to usa that agency assassinate it’s own president. And got away with it.
Do you know how devastating that is to the image of USA?
I hear we don’t get to know what’s in the newest vaccines until 2076. 
3 Likes
Yes, I suspect the history of the US since World War II would be a lot different if we knew the secrets in the CIA/FBI archives.
I doubt we will get any real information about 9-11 anytime soon. There are too many people who are still in positions of power to prevent that.
We should have a better shot at information that is at least 50 years old. JFK was assassinated in 1963. The FBI was spying on Robert Kennedy, and who was assassinated in 1968. RFK was assassinated on national television, but most of the photographic evidence from the scene reported disappeared soon after the assassination. He had just won the California primary and was likely to be elected president.
Nixon was forced to resign based on leaks from Mark Felt, a senior FBI official who was later convicted on felony charges related to illegal warrantless break-ins of dissident groups in the US.
It is possible that the elements of the CIA and FBI got rid of three presidents in a little over a decade.
You think the CIA assassinated Kennedy?
I think that it is certainly plausible that they were involved. The Church Committee reveal a sorted history of illegal surveillance and foreign assassinations during the Vietnam era.
We have seen how the FBI and CIA have conspired to sabotage Trump. It is clear that they believe that the elected government should be under their control, not the other way around. I doubt that is anything new.
Can’t rule it out. Not until they release the report.
Why would the Soviet Union have had a motive to kill Kennedy?
JFK was one of the few American politicians who was willing to negotiate with them at the time. He wasn’t “pro-Soviet” but he was “pro not blowing each other up and finding middle ground.”
IMO, I don’t understand why the USSR would have even been involved considering Kennedy was one of the more “friendly” presidents to them.
Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in 1959, married a Russian woman, and then returned to the US in 1963.
He was on the radar for both the CIA and the KGB for several years.
Oswald is very odd character on multiple levels.
1 Like
Cuba?
The mafia?
It is possible that the CIA records would implicate other players, but why then would the CIA be so concerned to prevent release of the records?
The only thing I can think of is that it would comprise the findings of the Warren Report and show we were lied to by the government.
Imagine that.
No.
If anyone had anything to hide then those they mentored will never want it out, etc
Once begun it can never end.
Here are some clues about why the CIA does not want to release the files.
Two days before Kennedy’s assassination, a hate-Kennedy handbill was circulated in Dallas accusing the president of treasonous activities including being a communist sympathizer. Did they come from the CIA?
The CIA was angry at JFK for not attacking Cuba with US troops and air strikes during the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and for reducing CIA authority in the government. There were also links between the CIA and failed coups and assassination attempts against Charles De Gaulle because of De Gaulle’s decision to withdraw from Algeria.
Right before the assassination, Kennedy announced that US military personnel would leave Vietnam.
By Oct 11th, 1963, NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy[14], was released and outlined a policy decision “to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963” and further stated that “It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by 1965.” The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY ’65.
Another possibility would be revelations about CIA control over US media organizations. Consider this article from 1977 by Carl Bernstein.
. . .more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap . . .
. . .rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner, publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. . .
The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible . . .
There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as “known assets” and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects.
http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
The fact that there has been barely a peep from major US news media about the failure to release the documents is tacit confirmation that the CIA still has a huge influence over the media.
This is what I was talking about “embarrassing” but no there there
It is fascinating how we want to reject the randomness of a single pissed off dude with a gun being able to change history.
2 Likes
And that needs to remain secret today, why?
None of it should be secret.
I don’t see how any new piece of information will change that it was a piss off dude with a gun.
No guesses as to why one guy with a gun is still a state secret?
1 Like
Because they like to keep things secret.
1 Like
Yes. One KGB operative with a gun who was apparently allowed to participate in the assassination while under surveillance by the FBI and the CIA.
The truth is out there somewhere.
