A question for 2016 presidential candidates

Do you favor the release of all JFK assassination records in possession of the U.S. government by October 2017 without exception?


17 thoughts on “A question for 2016 presidential candidates”

  1. I don’t expect a straight answer from Jeb Bush.

    Not that I think Bush Sr was involved in the JFK assassination. He most likely was not involved. However, I do think Bush Sr lied about when he began working for the CIA and it’s possible that one or more of the files could mention Bush having an earlier role within the CIA than he had admitted publicly.

    IMO, some of the secrecy surrounding the files is about protecting the reputations of CIA officers and assets who are still alive.

  2. -Where the hell is Anne Goodpasture?
    -Why are Oswald’s military records still being held from public?
    -Were Allen Dulles and James Angleton moles?-see cleveland cram
    -Why did David Phillips face look like that?
    -Long live Tony Poe!
    -Is Anne Eggerter still alive she could be of help?
    -Is Photon Chief of Station in Mexico City?
    -Why was Richard Helms such a smug little bastard?
    -What the hell was the “Communist Threat”?

    1. — Anne Goodpasture died in 2011.
      — I believe most of oswald’s military records are public.
      — We should push for Cleveland Cram’s CI History to be declassified.
      — Phillips’ face looked like that because he smoked cigarettes. It killed him.
      — If Tony really ignored heroin factories along the Mekong River, he’s no friend of mine.
      — Ann Egerter died in the 80s. Also known as Betty Eggetet and Susan Purcell.
      — If Photon was station chief in Mexico City, it would be an improvement.
      — Richard Helms was smug because he was an asshole that knew secrets.
      — The “Communist Threat” was a triumph in public relations.

      1. May I add: George W. Bush never knew what he was supposed to know. Another legacy of ashes — or, as Trent Reznor put it, an empire of dirt.

  3. This is a good question to ask a candidate. But in this self-congratulatory democracy of ours, why can’t get we get straight answers to the following questions by the CIA of a 50+ year-old case that Morley and others have asked:

    o Why did the CIA attempt to forever bury George Joannides’ role as the agent guiding the DRE when several of their members interacted with Oswald in NO?

    o Why did the CIA bring Joannides out of retirement to be the agency’s liaison to HSCA investigators and commit felonious obstruction?

    o Why didn’t alarm bells ring before the assassination when a Russian defector and traitor, pro-Castro agitator and US citizen was confirmed meeting with the head of assassinations for the KGB in Mexico City?

    o Why were the tapes of Oswald speaking to Cuban and Russian officials in Mexico City that were confirmed to exist by Hoover and his FBI, WC lawyers and CIA personnel ever revealed to the American people?

    o Why did high-ranking CIA officers send false memos about Oswald’s background back to the Mexico City station that resulted in Oswald being taken off the security watch list by the FBI weeks before the assassination?

    o Why does Oswald friend George DM check in with CIA personnel before starting his friendship with the alleged assassin and after he leaves Dallas in DC?

    o How does the JMWAVE station have radio and TV interviews of Oswald as pro-Castro agitator out to media within a couple hours of the assassination but somehow he never was on their radar screen before the assassination?

    o How does a press release from a CIA funded and guided propaganda group warning the country about Oswald before the assassination get overlooked by the JMWAVE station?

    o Why did the careers of CIA personnel who overlooked Oswald as a threat do so well after the assassination while those who wanted to investigate further like John Whitten were essentially pushed out of the agency?

    And one question for the mainstream media – why aren’t you asking these questions of the CIA?

  4. Jeff,

    Nice try, but what politician ever gives a straight answer to a closed-ended question?

    They =could= give a simple yes, then “change their minds” down the track.

    But the likely response would be along the lines of “I favour the release in principle , but we would first have to determine if there are any adverse national security implications.”

    1. Ramon F Herrera

      Hi Marcus:

      Don’t you realize that simply by putting Jeff or some competing JFK activist (obviously JFK Facts participants, by near unanimity will prefer Jeff) in that podium, even if he simply said:

      [Jeff Morley:]
      “How about that Kennedy thing?”

      [Wolf Blitzer (rather puzzled):]
      “Mr. Morley: Do you have any specific question?”

      [Jeff Morley”]
      “No, not really – Have a good day and best luck to all!”

      It would be a HUGE, HISTORICAL act and achievement?

      The specific wording is just the icing on the cake.

      Can you imagine and tell us anything remotely close to that intervention, since presidential debates have been covered live? Or by the printed press, back to the founders?

      1. Hello Ramon.

        I am not knocking Jeff – far from it,as I support his attempts to elicit transparency.And I believe he is right about Joannides.

        Yes,the publicity from such a question may be good, but at my age,I tend to be cynical – or perhaps I should say ,REALISTIC – about politicians of all stripes.



  5. Jeff – We’ll never get any really incriminating documents from the government (if any are left). Not now or in 2017, regardless of who sits in the White House. As your own book outlines so well, how long did anything of any importance last in Mexico City? You know the answer – it’s all gone – decades ago.

    1. You may be right. But why are they still keeping secret what they are. The only way we will know for sure is if the files are released.
      So, how do we get this question proposed to candidates in a forum they can not ignore?

    2. Ramon F Herrera


      We have gotten millions of incriminating documents already.

      Just take a step back and look at the 50 year story. It has been a revelation in slow motion.

      Is it your contention that:

      (a) The documents will actually be released on Thursday, October 26, 2017, but they contain only shopping lists, weather reports, unrelated comments, birthday dates, crossword puzzles, doodles, etc?

      (b) All presidents until the end of time will support the agencies over We The People on a document by document basis?

      Honestly, I cannot imagine which of the two would be more insulting to the American people, and cause for the permanent loss of our Republic.

  6. Ramon F Herrera


    If they allow 21 words or less, those ones are better than good.

    I would, however, try to build a case, along these lines:


    “There are many authors and people in America who contend that between November 1963 and Watergate, the trust of Americans toward our institutions was broken, some claim irreparably. People became cynical and reluctant to join efforts like the Peace Corps, or acts proper of democracy such as voting.

    “The tragic aspect is that even if the government acquiesced to reveal everything it knows about the assassination, there are no warranties that the people will believe it.

    “There is an initiative for the people *themselves* to investigate and solve the crime. Universities would be encouraged, in a completely open and scientific environment, peer reviewed to determine, as an excellent example, once and for all the physics of the violent back snap. This would be done by our brightest minds, with the government providing not only the necessary funding but a warranty that those scientists will not find the head of a horse in their bed.

    “That would be the only way for the broken trust to be repaired, and the healing to begin.

    “The mentioned initiative was inspired in ‘Ask not what the government can do for you…’

    Your opinion, Madame Secretary Clinton (or Governor Bush, [whoever])?”


    Well, you get the point.

    No, the writing is far from being perfect. It can use revision by a professional journalist.

      1. Hello there Tom, nice to meet you.

        I’m not quite sure what you mean by that comment. I was talking to Terry about how we ROKCers were all banned from Ed Forum. We’re now reinstated but I found I had to remind them and was advising him to do the same.

        Could you please expand on what you mean?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top