Hey, guys, ready or not?
Twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
That is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support.
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
During our sixty minutes interview, Kamala Harris was also asked a question that it seems like she wasn't quite ready for.
If she might not be ready for the answer. Here, let's take a lesson.
Which foreign country do you consider to be our greatest adversary?
I think there's an obvious one in mind, which is Iran. Iran has American blood on their hands. Okay, this attack on Israel two hundred ballistic missiles. What we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power? That is one of my highs priority.
So that must be is building a nuclear weapon?
Would you take military action?
I'm not going to talk about hypotheticals at this moment.
I'm Sorry, what what.
I've been I've been upset about this basically from the moment that I saw this, because this was in the overtime. Yeah, first of all, why didn't they put that in there? That's an insane thing to say. So we're talking about a regional power, non nuclear state, maybe nuclear that threatens. Is that is the right answer if your name is Israel, if you're the president of the United Look, even with a liberal framework, say Russia. Russia is a stupid answer too.
You can make a case for it. Right, It's got nukes, it invaded Ukraine. All right, I still think that's not all that high priority in their idiotic world. So yeah, yeah, exactly, you got you got boomers who are worried about, you know, the drills or whatever.
Okay, so I get that.
I still think it's an incredibly dumb answer. But Iran, Iran. I notice that she said it's our greatest threat. She talks about American blood on their hands. I assume that she's talking about those proxy attacks on US soldiers three killed in that Jordanian attack recently and then previously the war in Iraq.
But then she starts talking about.
Is a whole on a second, you said our greatest adversary, not Israel's greatest adversary. I mean, that is honestly one of the most troubling answers I have ever heard from a presidential candidate, because what does that mean for your worldview of what you think adversary to the United States is not to Israel? Not voting for the president of Israel supposed to be voting for the president who's looking at our commerce. I mean, like I just said, you can make a fine case for Russia.
I still think it's dumb. China's the most obvious answer, even within that.
I mean, Biden says China, right, like, what are we doing here with Iran?
Yeah, I think she treated it as a pop quiz, didn't know the answer, and I reached for one. Oh my god, I don't think she actually believes that iron Ore is our biggest threat. How cool, though, would it be to have a president who said, none of the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Honestly, that'd better answer.
Again, I don't agree with that necessarily, but yeah, I could make a philosophical case, you know, in one where America is so powerful that our own division and lack of unity is a threat to US, our you know, to global instability.
And to other natures.
In fact, you know, I don't almost I don't not believe that, but I just think that they're you know, within the framework of the greatest adversary. But I just have no idea how you arrive at Iran. And also noticed Ryan, she didn't even think about it. She immediately went to it. It's like, if you look back at those previous debates and I said this on Twitter, I was like, I honestly think that is the stupidest answer this question. In several decades during the Cold War, it
was not really that difficult. The only time where it's ever been in flux is that twenty twelve famous debate Romney and Obama where Romney says Russia and Obama correctly makes fun of him.
He's like, well, we don't have bandit's anymore, you know, mister.
Romney and all that, and he was Obama's right, you know, by the way, because he said China.
But you know, in the Year of Our Lord twenty twenty four.
To say Iran is so crazy, like again, we are not talking about a nation that in any way like when you say greatest adversary, you are talking about global competition. You are talking about somebody who poses a genuine existential.
Threat to the super power.
There is only one nation in the world for which that's not even one hundred percent true, but he can make a case for it, and that's China. That's why the Russia one is so dumb. And that's why Iran. I mean again, we're talking about shipping lanes. Okay, fine, you know, live a little damage to the US economy. Not even saying it would be good, it would be I think it would be a disaster, you know, for to get into a war with Iraq.
But to say our greatest adversary, they're.
Doing backflip in Beijing, They're doing backflips in Moscow over this.
If you're so dumb that you think that I can't help you.
I think the actual answer to this is that our greatest adversary is ourselves are our own military adventurism, our recklessness, and also our sanctions policy, which Jeff Stein has caused has covered so well, our sanction's policy, which is going to eventually drive the rest of the world stop using the dollar, which is the main thing I think.
That's a fine answer. And the reason why, again is just fine.
Is it acknowledges like superpower status and it's like, actually, the only threat to us is ourselves because we're so big, we're so powerful that only our own missteps can lead us into desa, which is true. I mean, if you look at Iraq and all, nobody could have damaged America more than the American innovasion of Iraq. But yeah, I mean, I just just ideologically framework wise to talk about Iran.
I mean also when you say our greatest adversary, at least on Russia and China, we have a limiting principle of war called nuclear weapons like that at the end of the day, that stops it from escalating into the worst areas.
With Iran, they don't have nukes, at least not yet.
And we're on the precipice of a potential is really strike on nuclear facilities or even oil facilities, which could lead to blowback that actually could lead to a full blown hot war which would draw the United States in almost certainly.
So is that where we're setting the stage here? I mean, that's the crazy too. The part two.
The latest leaks out of Israel are that they have decided not to target the nuclear sites because they're inside of a mountain and they can't do it. Yeah, we paid them off and begged them not to do it. Instead, they're going to attack the oil industry, which Iran has said it will respond by attacking Saudi exactly, Iraq and other oil fields throughout the Middle East and just setting an entire thing on fire.
So we'll see how that goes.
That we have an interesting example of our own recklessness that I was referring to over at drop site. If you can put up this element here. Our correspondent over in Israel, Yaniv Kogan, writes this piece blinkn approved policy to bomb aid trucks, Israeli cabinet members suggest, and that might sound crazy, go read the story. I'll put the
link in the description down below. What Yaniv identified here is that at October sixteenth and seventeenth, from into the early morning hours of the seventeenth, Secretary of State Blincoln goes to Israel. So this is ten days out after the attack and humanitarian aid has been cut off to Gaza. The first thing that Netnyah who says to him, is that, look, I can't actually lift this siege. I've got people in my cabinet who don't want a bottle of aspirin getting
into Gaza. He says, I will negotiate this with Biden, not with you. And Blincoln says, Biden's not getting on a plane and coming to visit here on unless you change this policy, okay, And so Blinken thinks that that bluster is going to move netyah who he meets him six hours later that Yahoo still hasn't moved.
So what Yani reports here.
Blincoln sits down with the security cabinet of Israel and they hash out a humanitarian aid policy, and the policy that they finally agree to is that, okay, we will let in some aid trucks, not through Israel, will let them come in through Egypt. Egypt has to basically let us monitor everything that's going in, and if we believe that there is any Hamas involvement with any of these
aid convoys, we are allowed to strike those convoys. And Blincoln then signs off on those And one of the key pieces of evidence of this they first the first draft was published in English, which is, you know, the kind of a giveaway is going back and forth and the word.
That they use to thwart. They say, we will thwart it.
If it's connected to Hamas, we will thwart the convoy is the same Hebrew Wordy points out that they often used to describe assassinations, so thwart is they're clear about what's going on here. The State's Department spokesperson Matthew Miller was asked by side Eric Coott yesterday about this report at the State Department briefing.
Let's take a listen to that.
Let me ask you about a report and drop side and it says that Secret Blinken approved a policy to bomb eight trucks. That what an israeted cabinet members said, are you aware of that? Your void and you have any comment.
I am aware of the report. I'm glad you asked me about it. Look, the suggestion that we in any way signed off on bombing humanitatorian convoys is absurd.
It's just not true.
Of course, Israel has the right to target Hamas militants. That has always been the case. And so look, if if you had a situation where Hamas commandeered convoy and AMAS militants were operating a convoy, of course Israel would have the right to strike those militants. That's not been the situation that we've seen over the past year. Except in some very limited circumstances. There have been a few reports here and there of AMAS commandeering convoys, in most
cases returned quickly to the humanitarian organizations. It has not been there's not been any widespread evidence that we have seen of AMAS actually taking convoys and commandeering them, which is I think the scenario or the propositions this scenario presumes. So the strikes that Israel has conducted on humanitarian convoys have been times when they have had failures in their deconfliction processes, where they have had intelligence failures, and when
they've just made basic mistakes. And the thing that we have made clear about those is that those mistakes are unacceptable and that humanitarian workers need to be protected and humanitarian aid needs.
To be protected.
So the idea that we anyone of this apartments signed off on bombing humanitarian congress is just absolutely ridiculous.
So if you notice their sager, he starts by calling the report absurd, but then throughout the answer he basically confirms the report that if Israel believes that Hamas is involved with these convoys, then of course they have the right to strike it. That rationale is, of course the one that the IDF has used each time it has
struck a convoy. If you think back to the World's Central Kitchen attack that killed all those aid workers, they said, well, we thought that there were a couple of Hamas militants at some point before it went into the warehouse, and we.
Thought maybe they were still there.
Every attack on an aid convoy has used this very rationale. The other policy option available is, you know what, don't attack humanitarian aid convoys.
Let's just have that as our policy.
Like, that's an available policy, and still to this day, not one that the US has insisted on.
I'm I mean the report itself is I actually encourage people to go read it. But on the response from Matt Miller, what did you make then of his categorical denial or was there room for this within his framework?
What did you think of that?
So if you parse, if you're used to parsing these responses, absurd is a word that they use.
That's not a categor old denial.
Oh I like that, right, Yeah, it's absurd, but it could be.
Yeah, it doesn't actually mean it's not true, and then he later says, of course, you know, if Hamas has commandeered an AID convoy, then Israel has a right to strike that. That's what we reported, got it, And so they're confirming that that is the policy because, like I said, the alternative policy is we don't care who is driving the AID convoy.
You don't strike an AID convoy.
You deal if something happens to an AID convoy, you deal with that later. In other way ways, the Flower massacre where one hundred plus people or so were slaughtered at this intersection, Uh, there was a Hamas security official who was in charge of the security around that delivery of the flower. Like this is often who AID organizations are communicating with the Hamas police officials. Hamas is the de facto government. So you're gonna find Hamas if you
and if and if you're Israel. You have been saying for years that Unra is a front for Hamas. So a low level or mid level operative who is behind the button on the drone. Oh Unra, Well, we already believe that they're a front for Hamas and thoroughly infiltrated and a terrorist organization that ought to be banned there's an enra and you see you see one guy with a gun, like, all right, well we're going to hit this AID convoy. It also raises the question who do
they want to do security for these AID convoys? Blackwater available for business to start shepherding AID convoys through Gaza, Like what are they talking about? So the result is that AID convoys gets struck, And the result of an AID convoy getting struck is not just that that particular flower or water or medicine doesn't get delivered, but then the AID organization itself not only has lost personnel but usually stops for an extended period of time delivering aid.
What do you make of this in the context of previous stuff you guys have reported about Blinking and his overruling of things within the Department.
That he's effectively acted as basically an attorney for like Smotrich and Benevie, like taking their harshest ideological positions and massaging them into something that's acceptable from a US perspective. And I think that if you delved into his heart of hearts or something, what he would be saying is, look, it was either this or abject starvation. Because they were telling me that not a single aspirin was going to get in, and I got fifty trucks in, and then
the next day there was sixty trucks in. And yes, the result was that some convoys got struck, and that's unfortunate, but the alternative was much worse. So I think that's that's what that's what they would argue. But on the other hand, it's the greatest superpower in the history of the world that is just getting you know, walked around by a client.
That's what underscores to me is like we go through all this bureaucratic bs to like approve all of this Israeli violation of US law, and then you see the same machine kick in to justify anything Ukraine you know, wants to do. And it's like when you put those two things together, you're like, what are we doing here?
Is a choice?
Yeah, yeah, these are explicit choices. These are by I mean, if anything, it seems to me like Blinkin' is such a power of force because Biden is so cooked and so irrelevant that Blincoln does run a lot of US foreign policy with just with respect to these discrete choices, when you know, Biden can coherently be like, just give them whatever they want, but he's the one actually mechanically executing all this.
There was a new Axios report this morning. I love that new reports absolutely four sources say that Biden is increasingly frustrated and doesn't he doesn't trust, he doesn't trust that the Israelis are honest brokers when it comes to their their talks with him.
It's like, okay, I got it, very very useful. Any other plans on the State Department? If you were, when's the next briefing today?
I'll be at it.
I was at this one and I got I got dist on the on the follow up?
What what do you want to ask him today?
I don't know that people should tell me what they want to ask.
One thing I have been uh, I've been wanting to ask is what happened to the American concern for civil casualties?
When? When?
When Israel bomb this top PAMAS command killed a TOPAMAS commander in two thousand and two, this is six It was six months after.
The nine eleven administration. I remember this, Yeah, six.
Months after nine to eleven.
Islamophobia in fear of terrorists is ripping through the American body politic. They take out a top a mass commander and killed like eight civilians or so in that strike. Bush like the Bush administration loses it on them, like
this is an unacceptable civilian death toll. Now you can take out two to three hundred civilians in a single strike aimed at a top Hesbola commander, and the answer from the State's apartment is, well, you know, Hesbela shouldn't be near all of these civilians, right, Not even not even a reference in it an a Lloyd Austin statement or a Blinken statement, or a Biden statement or Arao statement, not even a line that says this civilian death toll is unacceptable.
What happened?
So I'm curious from their perspective, what happened in the twenty years since then to make it so that we're cool with that, you.
Should ask him that I'd like to see that. I remember I've brought that up before about the Bush administration. How in O two even Ari Fleischer, who actually that's the ironic part.
Fleischer said that in two thousand and two.
But now he's on Fox and who's being like, actually, Israel is the most moral, moral army in the history of the world. I'm like, wait, but I know nothing matters. But you know you said that, he'd be like, well that was President Bush, not me.
Yeah, I'm sure the compassionate conservative.
Amazing. All right, let's move on to Hillary Clinton. This is something I've been wanting to put in this show for quite some time. I actually watched this interview live. I was sitting in State of Pennsylvania.
You know, is in the morning.
You know, my father in law loves to keep CNN on. Don't ask me why, but I was forced to endure this struggle session and this It's funny because it's one of those things where Smerconish clearly does not really a magnitude of what actually just was said. But if you're listening carefully, you're like, that's one of the most insane things I've ever heard. So here we have Hillary talking about how imperative it is to censor and to monitor content.
Let's take a listen. There should be a lot of things done.
We should be in my view, repealing something called Section two thirty, which gave you know, platforms on the Internet immunity because they were thought to be just passed through that they shouldn't be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that that was an overly simple view that if the platforms, whether it's Facebook or Twitter x or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don't moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.
We lose total control, all right? So what do we take away from that rhyme? We lose total control? Right?
Who's who's the we?
What are you controlling? What are we?
What are we?
You know, it's interesting too we should consider, like what the context of this interview actually happens, because it happened within the general context of being asked not necessarily about social media, but about election strife ahead of this election. So that was specifically being talked about in the context of quote unquote misinformation ahead of the current election. And
I was thinking, Wow, that's very revealing, isn't it. It also gets to the bitterness of Hillary because you have to remember that the through line for all of this is still Russia twenty sixteen, And now they've foe intellectualized the argument about all this and look, you know the whole section two thirty thing. There's arguments to be made. Actually, I've seen from the right, from the left, about it
about liability and all that. But if you're making the argument explicitly to say that we need straight up much more criminal liability for platforms for spreading misinformation, that gives the game away in a very certain sense.
Yeah, it also suggests that she still believes that most of big tech. Obviously she feels like Twitter has fallen, but she still feels like most of big tech is.
Susceptible to her pressure.
Yeah that if that, you know, if she that there's some alignment there that they're they're doing enough according to her, But she feels like if that, if she makes the case, if Democrats put enough pressure on them, they can Yeah. Two thirty is interesting for people to know that that's the section of the law that says that if you're a platform, basically say you're a comment section, that you are not personally liable. Your company is not liable for
something that somebody says in a comment section. Because the argument is that you can't have a free flowing debate of user generated content if you have to fact check every single thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry is putting up on your site. The argument against it is that that was the case when platforms were neutral, and that every but he had an equal chance, and that the published product of that platform was the thumb of the parts of the voices that were allowed to flow
freely into it. So the argument is, if you're no longer balanced, and your algorithm is pushing something far to the left, or pushing something far to the right, or driving a particular narrative, then you are actually a publisher and you no longer should have the shield of two thirty.
Let's say to take Twitter, for example, if they can prove that like Musk like goes in and puts his s thumb on the scale, or old Twitter, If with old Twitter you could prove that they were going in and putting their thumb on the scale and pushing it in Biden's direction on the Hunter Biden story or whatever else, they would say, well, actually that's not protected, and you now can be sued for defamation.
I just think that the context of this, well, actually, you know what, we never got to talk because that also came after that Tim Walls clip from the debate.
We haven't seen enough time.
We all had to move on.
But yeah, what okay, as a leftist, give us the take on why Tim Wallas was wrong.
Shocking, Yeah, Tim Wallas.
Well, first of all, he did the stupid can't yell fire, yell fire in a crowd theater? Was yeah, if there's a fire, you absolutely can. And if you yell fire in a crowded theater and you do not cause panic, then that also is fine, Like you're allowed to do that, right.
This is a commonly sided thing. I don't know what the origins of it even are.
It was in a Supreme court. It was in a Supreme Court ruling.
Where he was saying like, obviously, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and cause yes, false falsely and you call falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and to cause panic, so you need all of those different elements.
You have to know it's false, and you have to cause panic.
And they were using it to lock up socialists who were calling for resistance to the draft.
That's World War One. But they weren't even calling for risins the draft.
They were telling people to call their member of Congress and argue to repeal the draft law. So and and they and that that, and they locked the head of the Socialist Party up for like six months for that or whatever. So like terrible for anybody to point to that in any in any way. More worrisome, I thought, was what he said right after that. He's like, he said, you don't have a right to hate speech.
Yeah, that's right.
Oh actually did like bro, Yeah, that's the whole point, right, and what speech that is?
Just loving speech? Yes, makes no sense. Who's going to prosecute for well.
Especially terrifying in the context of all these like democratic current efforts to like institutionalize what is it the the definition of anti Semitism? What is the IHR definition, which basically is just it's anti semitic to criticize Israel, which is nuts, I mean, and by the way, that fits with a lot of those Republican BDS laws that are already on the books, totally unconstitutional for you.
Just outsourcing the definition of something like that to a private organization which.
Could then go on its website and change it again.
Yeah, the whole thing is crazy. But anyway, I mean, it's alive and well in the sense.
In Columbia that said you can't use Zionist in a pejorative.
That just happened, Yeah, didn't you. You talked about that because well, Columbia's it's different.
Becau's private.
We can criticize it, but there's not much you can do on an institutional level.
You don't get federal funding.
Yeah, but you made a good point. You're like, wait, but what about in like history.
Classes, like eat papers.
Yeah, it's like in papers, you know, in a literal academic context. But suddenly a lot of those concerns just disappear, and because what we all know is that they really mean it that if it's in a historal context is fine, But if it's in a political context on campus, you don't like it, and especially if the donors don't like it, that's when you're going to get expelled.
And that's when it's a problem.
Okay, we've got Jefferson Morley standing by, so let's get to.
It all right.
Joining us today is Jefferson Morley, who's the author of many books on the JFK assassination. I've been investigating it for many decades.
How long thirty years? So thirty years.
At this point, you have a new piece out, and let's put this up on the screen. This is at his substack JFK Facts, which everybody should subscribe to. One thing that Jefferson is known for is almost never relying on anonymous sources. Everything is document based and people who are willing to put their name to something. This latest story is significantly based on an anonymous source, which to me signals how important you think it is.
That's true that you're willing, that you're willing to go forward.
So tell us what this source told you and why this is in advance on what we understand, or at least adds new questions to what we understand about the assassination.
This source approached me a few years ago and said, in the course of working at the CIA, had seen a document that disturbed them, and so we talked about that. I investigated a little bit, found a lot to corroborate that.
I also checked out the source professional expertise, experience, and I felt very confident this source is highly credible and I wouldn't like you say, I rarely rarely use unnamed sources, but in this case, I felt if the source was willing to take a chance of disclosing classified information, then I could take a chance on the source.
Do you feel like that this source will ever come forward, like we're going to learn who this is at some point.
I think the sources will be willing to do that.
So let's talk about what they told you.
What did you do? What did they show you.
The source had two really significant things. One that there was a file room in a CIA office in Herndon, Virginia, where the CIA keeps its assassination related records. Now that doesn't mean that those are all secret records. Those may be records that have been shared with the Congress, we don't know, but that there is a dedicated facility like that.
And I did some reporting talk to people who have worked in that building, one of whom confirmed to me that there was a JFK facility within a skiff as a secure compartmentalized intelligence facility, and so I felt good
about that. The second thing that the source said was that in the course of duties at the CIA, the source had seen a document about the CIA's reaction to the Congressional investigation of the nineteen seventies, and the source felt that this document, lengthy document forty fifty pages, apparently produced by the CIA Inspector Gene, showed an intent to deceive the congressional investigators. The source says, this document shows that they knew they weren't being totally forthcoming, and when
Congress didn't penetrate their deception, they celebrated. Now, there's no document like that that's been released in the past thirty years, with all the JFK releases under Trump and Biden, there's no document that fits that description in the remaining thirty five hundred JFK documents that still contain redactions. So this document is not in the JFK collection. Obviously it should be. One of the important things about the story and this
made me. Also made me feel good was when I asked the CIA for comment, they did not deny any of the facts in the story. In fact, they said something slightly disturbing if you parse their statement carefully. What they're saying is we're under no obligation to release this document, and if we want to keep it public, we.
Will got it.
And so one of the things, as you talk about in the stories about Oswald in.
Mex Yes, and that's the core of what he's talking about. The source says that the House Select Committee was called in and showed a bunch of documents about the CIA surveillance of Oswald in Mexico City shortly before the assassination with President Kennedy. The CIA has always said we never obtained any photographs of Oswald in Mexico City. The source says one of the things that he saw in the JFK file room was what looked like a video case
that was labeled Oswald in Mexico and dated nineteen sixty three. Now, if there is photography of Oswald in Mexico City in the possession of the CIA today, that alone will rewrite the JFK story because they have been so adamant about denying this over the years. And what you see, the larger point of the story here is that what you see as this fits a pattern of withholding information, closely held information that the CIA had about Lee Harvey Osweald
before the assassination. And that's what's really going on here, is they are withholding JFK documents to this day. And the source's story makes that story, you know, makes that clear. And the fact that the CIA is not denying it, not saying that doesn't say the document doesn't exist, doesn't say the facility doesn't exist. You know, we're onto something. So this is really about you know, why does it matter today? Well, this is about accountability. You know, it's
about transparency. We've had these assassination attempts on President Trump, lots of conspiracy theories, politicization of that. Obviously, we need transparency, we need credible investigations around it. And the same goes for President Kennedy. This, you know, this is a that doesn't go away in American politics. We're still talking about it sixty years later because of its symbolic importance and because you know, we have this mistrust of government. Government
institutions aren't legitimate. And if you look in the broad sweep of history, when did US government begin to lose its credibility? It was right around nineteen sixty four, according to the polls around the more In Commission report in nineteen sixty four. Since then, that report not particularly credible. With the American people, confidence in government has been going down.
One of the theories that says actually there was there's a theory says there was no conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. And in fact, what we're looking at when it comes to CIA is CIA that they actually are just covering for their own incompetence, and once and then its snowballs into covering for their.
Cover up and does this fit that or does this fit the other?
I mean, I think that this points more to complicity because of numerous false statements and the way CIA operations are structured. This looks like a CIA operation, not CIA in competence, but the available evidence. I have good friends who argue the other way, like you're saying, this is just they screwed up and they're just covering their assets. Well, that's why we have the JFK Records Act. The JFK Records Act of nineteen ninety two says the government has
to release all JFK records in its possession. They have to review them and release them. They have a presumption of immediate disclosure according to the law. So if the CIA explanation is right, that doesn't mean that they don't have to disclose these records. They do have to disclose them. And if that's the case, then they should quell conspiracy conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorizing and say we screwed up
and here's here's how we did it. But to say we're innocent and we're not going to share all the records with you, that's not credible.
And so yeah, in that let's take people back if they're not all that familiar about Oswald's time in Mexico and the meetings that he allegedly was having there, and how that would fit into a conspiracy explanation. Why is that significant Oswald's time in Mexico.
So Oswald, the accused assassin who denied We.
Wrote a book up Our Man in Mexico.
Yeah, So the story that I tell in Our Man in Mexico is Learvy Oswald, the man who will be accused of killing the president and who will deny it and then be killed in police custody. Goes to Mexico City six weeks before the assassination and visits the Cuban consulate and the Soviet embassy, seeking to get a visa to travel to Cuba. The visa request is rejected. He's told he has to go get that in Washington, and
so Oswald returns to the United States. What the CIA told the Warrant Commission was, we didn't know anything about this guy. We did, you know, We knew so little about him. Didn't even get a picture of him, a surveillance picture of him. As I report in Our Man in Mexico. The station chief in Mexico City, when Scott said specifically that was not true. He had a very
sophisticated surveillance system around both of those. Unlike the CIA's statement that the cameras weren't working that day, falls investigators established that they were working, and the cias insists on this while we never got his we never took his picture, so and in fact, they knew a whole lot about him.
Senior CIA officials are looking at Oswald's file six weeks before the assassination, writing cables about him, thinking about him, and by the way, not calling any attention to him, despite the fact that he had been arrested for fighting with CIA funded group that summer, he had a Russian wife.
When he defected to the Soviet Union, he offered military secrets, and now he's visiting Soviet and and Cuban diplomatic compound where everybody in those working in those compounds was presumed to be an intelligence seas and most of them in those work just like a lot of people in the US embassy were, of course, and so the notion that they didn't get his picture was, you know, was never particularly credible. So what's going on here? Did they just miss him. Well, that would be the cya. We didn't
understand who he was. He went on and shot the president. Sorry, missus Kennedy, we just screwed up. What's hard to understand from our point of view today is, you know, the man who supposedly killed the president was well known to top CIA officials. Imagine if one of these accused assassins with President Trump was well known to a small group of top CIA officials, would that be Would we say that's relevant to the story. Yes, of course the CIA
hid all of that. And all of those people who watched Oswald's for four years as he made his way to Dealey Plaza, none of them lost their job, None of them even got so much as at the merit, mostly because nobody knew. Over the last sixty years, the story has come out in bits and pieces, and my story now is just the latest part of we're getting behind that curtain of official secrecy that has always surrounded
Oswald and Cuba operations. And when we go through that courtin we see, oh there's still more classified stuff behind it. And that's what's going on today is the CIA saying, you know, we really don't have to obey that law you know that law that says all JFK records, we don't really have to obey that. And you know, the CIA and the Constellation of American power a very strong institution on JFK records. They got what they wanted, exactly
what they wanted from two very different presidents. From Trump, who said all the JFK records were released in twenty seventeen, wasn't true. He had cut a deal with Mike Pompeo and the CIA and lots of records main secret and Biden more more expectedly, an institutionalist said, CIA, good guys, they can handle it from here on out. I wash my hands of the matter. So that's where it is right now. Trump's made a little bit of an issue of it, saying he would release the JFK files when
RFK endorsed him. You know, Trump had a chance to do it in twenty seventeen. He didn't, So it remains to be seen if he's elected, would he do would.
Okay, question of why we always talk about this All the people involved are dead, presumably, so why do they still care so much about.
Keeping because symbolically it's really important, and this is why they can't even back up an inch, because if they said we screwed up, you know, people get called up to Capitol Hill. Yeah, it asked the director, what's going on here? How did this happen? How come you didn't tell us about this? You know they might get their budget cut. So, yes, all the people involved are dead. And maybe the CIA could say, you know that was then,
this is now. But I think the path of least resistance and when you have the power of official secrecy, we're just going to bury that. Move along, folks, and you know this is what the CIA does. Presidents come and go, journalists come and go, the CIA is always there, and so I think they're thinking, well, you know, we can just wait this thing now.
No, that's all I got. I mean, I guess last thing if you have a minute. People also point to this police officer who claims that he accidentally squeezed the trigger.
I'm sure you've seen this one. What do you think of it? What do you make of it?
This is the most the most persistent hopes in the JFK story. The Secret Service man did it.
You're gonna you're gonna see for people in the comments.
Secou probably talk about this, So tell us about Okay.
Yeah, The claim is that the Secret Service man panicked and turning around accidentally shot the prison The only problem with this theory is there's no eye witness evidence to support it, there's no forensic evidence to support it, there's no photographic evidence to support it. And the author who first offered this, when facing legal action from one of the Secret Service offers involved, formally retracted the whole thing.
So there's no evidence and it's been renounced by the person who offered it, so chances are there's nothing to it. But I just I want to say one last thing is you know, people I ask why does it matter today? You know, what did Kennedy's ass What was the political meaning of Kennedy's assassination? And I think it's this. This is more my opinion. You can draw your you know,
the facts of the fact. After Kennedy, the most warlike faction in the US government always had the upper hand, and Kennedy was steering us away from that, trying to end the Cold War, not going to war in Cuba, pulling out slowly in Vietnam. There's debates about all of those things, but the big picture that Kennedy articulates in the summer of sixty three. We don't want a pas Americana,
he says. Imagine that. Imagine if there was a Democratic candidate or a Republican Kennedy who said, we don't want a Pax american We are in a Pax Americana era right now. We are establishing packs Americana in Ukraine, Gaza. You know, we are trying to maintain that there is another way, and the other way died with Kennedy.
Yeah, And whether the key thing to me is whether or not the CIA actually assassinated him. Every president since Kennedy, including LBJ, believed that they did.
Yeah, and operated accord operated this.
Yeah. And this is super important to where there's this discourse that tries to marginalize, you know, conspiracy theorists Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon had their foibles, had their problems. They were not conspiracy theorists. These were men of power who understood how American power worked. And none of them believed the CIA's story of a quote unquote.
We've got verified of that were terrified of them in the NBI, that's right, and it governed a lot of their decision making.
Highly recommend people.
That's why Trump did not release the documents. Slightly.
Yeah, seriously, Yeah, there you go.
Subscribe to the substack by the Books. Appreciate you joining us, sir, Thank you, thanks a million. We'll see you guys later