Oliver Stone was right about the CIA

I can’t decide which is more amusing: the CIA’s use of “national security” to justify keeping secret its 50-year-old records in the JFK assassination or the mainstream media’s response to the continued secrecy.

On the one hand, the CIA’s use of “national security” to justify keeping 98 percent of the still-secret records is palpably laughable. However one defines that nebulous term “national security,” one thing is patently clear: Nothing—absolutely nothing—would have happened to the United States if the CIA had been forced to let the American people see its still-secret, 50-year-old JFK records on October 26, 2018, as the 1992 JFK Records Act mandated. The United States wouldn’t have fallen into the ocean. The federal government wouldn’t have turned Red.

After all, what happened to the United States when only 2 percent of the long-secret records were finally released last week? Nothing. The United States is still standing and the commies have not taken over the federal government. But don’t forget: For more than 50 years, the CIA has maintained, falsely as it turns out, that disclosing those 2 percent of its records would threaten “national security.”

Although the mainstream media doesn’t seem to be buying this national-security nonsense, they simply cannot bring themselves to reach the commonsense and logical conclusion: The 98 percent of the long-secret CIA records contain more circumstantial evidence of guilt—circumstantial evidence that demonstrates that Oliver Stone was right when he posited in his movie JFK that the CIA did, in fact, effect one of its storied regime-change operations right here in the United States on November 22, 1963.

There is something important to keep in mind about Stone’s movie: It was the impetus that caused the American people to force Congress to enact the JFK Records Act in 1992, which forced the CIA and other federal agencies to disclose their JFK-assassination records to the American people. If Congress had not inserted the provision into the law that gave the CIA another 25 years to keep its records secret, the American people would have seen the records that the CIA is still steadfastly keeping secret 25 years ago.

The media emphasizes that the 2 percent of the records that were released contain no “smoking guns” that point to the CIA’s guilt in the assassination. By “smoking gun” they are referring to a videotaped confession or a CIA memorandum setting forth plans for the assassination. Having convinced themselves of the validity of the official theory—that the president was killed by a lone-nut former U.S. Marine communist, they are unable to recognize the pieces of important circumstantial evidence that, over the decades, have filled in the overall mosaic of a CIA regime-change operation, one based on the purported need to protect the nation from a president whose policies and actions were supposedly threatening “national security.”

In figuring out what happened in the Kennedy assassination, it’s important that a person employ common sense, logic, and a critical mindset. It’s the only way to pierce through all the so-called conspiracy theories about the assassination, some of which are undoubtedly designed to confuse and confound people from piercing through to the truth.

Why is the circumstantial evidence important? Because there never would have been a “smoking gun” videotaped confession or even a memorandum detailing the assassination of the president. There is no way that the CIA would be that stupid. In fact, long ago, the CIA made it clear that no CIA official should ever mention in writing any of its state-sponsored assassinations, for fear that the record might, inadvertently, come to light.

That means that in determining what actually happened, circumstantial evidence becomes critically important. No matter how much planning goes into a state-sponsored assassination, it’s inevitable that some things will not go according to plan. It’s like an army operation—no matter how much planning goes into it, things inevitably go wrong. And when things don’t go according to plan, circumstantial evidence oftentimes demonstrates that.

The CIA knows that. That’s why from the very beginning of the JFK assassination, secrecy was of the utmost importance. That’s why most of the Warren Commission proceedings were shrouded in secrecy. That’s why the records of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and military were ordered to be kept secret for 75 years after the Warren Commission issued its report. It’s why they are still steadfastly keeping their records secret.

After all, ask yourself: If the president were really killed by some lone-nut assassin who suddenly decided to kill the president for no reason at all, would it really be necessary to shroud the official investigation in secrecy for 75 years?

And ask yourself this: If the CIA really did orchestrate the assassination, would it not be in the CIA’s interest to shroud the entire operation in secrecy in order to prevent people from discovering the pieces of circumstantial evidence that pointed to guilt?

Let me give you an example of circumstantial evidence that point to the CIA’s guilt, which is part of the 2 percent of the records that the CIA just released. It gives you an idea of why the CIA cannot afford to release the other 98 percent of the records it is still keeping secret.

The 2 percent that was released includes a report marked “Secret” from J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, which states as follows:

There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead. The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.

Hoover wrote that secret report on November 24, 1963, never dreaming, of course, that the American people would ever see it. That is the same day that the president’s accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was murdered (and forever silenced) by Jack Ruby.

That is an incredible report. While some of the mainstream media are highlighting it, few of them are drawing the obvious inference—that Hoover’s aim was to shut down any further investigation into the assassination as part of the cover-up of the crime.

Instead, some in the media are simply pointing out that Hoover’s report is “old news,” given U.S. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach’s statement to the same effect.

Here is what Katzenbach stated in a memorandum that he began writing just a few hours after Oswald had been killed, which Katzenbach sent to the White House on November 25, 1963:

The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

Now, here is where your common sense, logic, and critical mindset come into play.

Does this sound like law enforcement officers to you? Is this what would you ordinarily expect from law-enforcement officers when someone is killed, especially a federal official?

Think about what happens when a cop is murdered. What do the other cops do? Don’t they pull out all the stops to figure out everyone who was involved in the murder?

In 1985, a DEA agent named Kiki Camarena was kidnapped and murdered in Mexico. His brutally tortured body was found in a rural area in Mexico.

The DEA immediately pulled out all the stops to figure out every person who had conceivably participated in Camarena’s murder. They even went so far as to kidnap people in Mexico whom they suspected of being involved in the murder and bringing them back to the United States to stand trial. Here is the Wikipedia entry on Camarena.

That’s the way we would expect federal law enforcement officials to operate, especially when a federal official is murdered. That’s just common sense.

In 1982, a federal judge named John H. Wood Jr. was assassinated in San Antonio, Texas. No one knew who had done the assassinating. Again, federal officials responded in the way we would expect them to respond. They pulled out all the stops to figure out everyone who was involved in the killing, including secretly listening in on conversations between suspects and their attorneys, which constituted a grave violation of the attorney-client privilege. Three people were later convicted of crimes relating to the assassination, including the crime of conspiracy. Here is a New York Times article about the case.

Now, let’s return to the JFK case. The president of the United States, the highest federal official in the land, has just been assassinated. A suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, is almost immediately taken into custody. He repeatedly denies his guilt and even goes one important step further by asserting that he is being framed for the crime. Two days later, Oswald is assassinated while in custody of the Dallas police.

And suddenly the federal highest law-enforcement officer in the nation and the second highest federal official in the Department of Justice are preparing memos and reports that effectively say: “A lone nut did it. His claim of innocence was false. He’s now dead. Shut down the investigation immediately.”

Does that make any sense? Does that comport with common sense? Why not instead determine if he was culpable and had confederates?

Hoover and Katzenbach weren’t the only ones. On the very night of the assassination, President Johnson, through his aide Cliff Carter, telephoned Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and instructed him to not investigate any evidence of a conspiracy in the assassination—to simply charge Oswald as the lone assassin.

Does that make any sense? Does it comport with common sense? How could Johnson know on the very night of the assassination that Oswald, if culpable, had no confederates? How could the head of the FBI know that? How could the deputy attorney general in the Justice Department know that?

Indeed, does it make any sense that a team of Secret Service agents used the threat of deadly force to prevent Texas state officials from conducting an autopsy on the president’s body, knowing full well that Texas law required such an autopsy? Does it make any sense that a president of the United States (Lyndon Johnson) would order that team of Secret Service agents to do that? Does it make sense that Johnson would patiently wait for the body at Dallas Love Field instead of immediately taking off, especially given the supposed threat of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union? (See my book The Kennedy Autopsy for more details about this episode and about the fraudulent nature of the JFK military autopsy.)

Consider the terrorist attack in New York City last week. Suppose law-enforcement officials had suddenly announced after the arrest of the suspect, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov: “He was undoubtedly a lone-nut terrorist and so we have suddenly decided to shut down the investigation without seeing if he had confederates.”

Wouldn’t you at least raise your eyebrows at such an announcement? Wouldn’t you instead expect them to do exactly what they are doing today—pulling out all stops to determine whether Saipov conspired with others to commit the crime?

Given that we already knew about the Katzenbach memo and Johnson’s instructions, an important question arises: Why would the CIA keep the Hoover report secret from the American people? Don’t forget, after all, that they have kept the Hoover report secret for more than 50 years. Their ground? “National security,” the same ground that they’re still keeping the 98 percent of their JFK assassination records secret.

But how in the world would the disclosure of Hoover’s report threaten “national security”? Would disclosure of the report cause the United States to fall into the ocean or cause the communists to take over the federal government?

Of course not. We all know that the record has now been released and that nothing bad has happened to the United States. What they really mean is that disclosure of the evidence would damage the CIA, which the CIA equates to a threat to “national security.” There can be only one reason for keeping the Hoover report secret: It provided further evidence of the cover-up of the crime. And it was obviously important since it came from the chief federal law-enforcement officer in the country, J. Edgar Hoover.

The mainstream media have accepted the official narrative, which is why they begin with the presumption that Oswald was guilty. Given that mindset, the only question that enters their mind is: Did Oswald act alone or did he work with others to assassinate Kennedy? Given that mindset, they cannot see any significance to the Hoover report. It’s just no big deal to them.

But let’s begin with a different assumption. Let’s assume that Oswald was, in fact, innocent. Let’s assume, even further, that he was an intelligence agent who the CIA was framing him for the crime—that he was exactly what he said he was, a patsy.

In that case, the Hoover report becomes a critically important piece of circumstantial evidence because it adds one more piece to the mosaic set forth in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK—that in a national-security regime-change operation, the U.S. national-security establishment orchestrated the assassination of President Kennedy and then used overwhelming secrecy, based on purported concerns for “national security,” to cover it up. And it would explain, in simple, understandable terms, why the CIA is still fighting hard to steadfastly keep Americans to see the 98 percent of the records that are still being kept secret.

This work by MWC News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.