Opinion - Reps. Luna and Garcia should make their next JFK hearing a fair fight
After plenty of thinking, I must admit: I have no idea what that means either.
I am not alone. JFK anti-conspiracy nation was appalled.
'My expectations were low going in and it was still worse than I expected,' said Gerald Posner in an interview. Posner is the author of 'Case Closed,' the bestselling book on the assassination. The one that lays out the-beyond-convincing case that Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested 80 minutes after the assassination — after murdering a Dallas police officer — is irrefutably much more than just 'the intellectual author' of the assassination.
He is the lone shooter of the president, proven by the evidence, melded with a solid understanding of his biography, confirmed by multiple investigations as well as by decades of hard work by individual researchers unimpressed by tales of invisible additional shooters; or of somehow popular explanations such as that either of two Secret Service agents in the motorcade shot JFK. (Really. This scenario is huge on social media.)
The reason the Oswald-is-guilty case was not made at the hearing is because no one present was interested in making it. Nobody at the witness table and nobody among their questioners, members of the subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who announced before the hearing that she had decided that multiple shooters were involved, and that a news film taken moments after the shooting had been hidden from the country by NBC.
It had not, and was barely referenced in the hearing. Several leading anti-conspiracy critics said they approached the subcommittee in advance of the hearing seeking a seat at that table of testifiers, but were ignored.
'We are not angry, but we are disappointed,' said Fred Litwin, author, podcaster and constant updater of his essential website, which debunks claim after ridiculous claim from JFK conspiracists. 'Congresswoman Luna does not seem to have a firm grasp of the case, and I worry that she could end up being fooled by theories which are ridiculous.'
One solution: Invite to testify next time experts with a broader range of views. And not just on who the killer is, but on what arcane documents mean and do not mean. Luna announced late last week she would in fact host another hearing on JFK issues.
Posner, Litwin, W. Tracey Parnell and other leading anti-JFK-conspiracy critics were left to provide fast and informative reactions after the made-for-TV event. The non-revelations piled up: The CIA reading Oswald's mail — actually only one letter, from Oswald's mother, asking him to write to her more — was likely because Oswald lived in the Soviet Union. The covert mail surveillance program itself has long been public, revealed in the 1970s.
Oliver Stone said 'more than 40 witnesses' have claimed they saw a large hole in the back of JFK's head, potentially indicating a shot from the front. Litwin and other researchers patiently point out that in fact such a claim is assembled from recollections that are nowhere near consistent — or from witnesses who would not have had an extended view of Kennedy's wounds.
Conspiracy dissenters also note the vast evidence-faking operation necessary to sustain such a scenario, involving, to begin with, the entire autopsy team — doctors, photographers, x-ray technicians, medical staff, military brass — as well as many others operating within an enormous criminal conspiracy that has somehow sustained for 62 years. (The most prominent film of the assassination would have had to be somehow secretly altered, as well, since it shows the back of the president's head intact.)
The JFK files release in the days preceding the hearing was also a dud, say the conspiracy dissenters, as nearly all of these documents were previously released and whatever redactions were uncovered addressed zilch about who shot the president. But additional truth may in fact be out there: JFK assassination-related files Litwin says he wants to read may be found in Cuba, Mexico City, Russia and in the city of Minsk in Belarus, the Soviet city where Oswald lived as a defector.
Litwin wants to know: Were further KGB operations in place to influence American public opinion — aimed at selling the narrative that the CIA was behind the assassination — than those already known?
One useful voice for future hearings is the king of the skeptics. 'Will the final release of all the JFK files at long last put an end to conspiracism surrounding the murder of the 35th president?' asked Michael Shermer, author, publisher, podcaster and executive director of the Skeptic Society. 'Of course not!
'If it were the assassination of Texas Gov. [John] Connally instead of JFK, or the mayor of Dallas, or anyone besides JFK, would we still be talking about it? No. Oswald would have been charged, tried and convicted in a short trial, and that would have been case closed. But because it was the POTUS, the proportionality bias dictates that large effects must have large causes.'
And if Luna keeps to her word to look into the murder of Robert Kennedy as well, she or ranking member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) could invite RFK case authority and author Mel Ayton or bulldog author-reporter Dan Moldea to that hearing. Both are respected anti-conspiracy authorities in the RFK case. Let's at least make it a fair fight.
Craig Colgan is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
6 hours ago
- UPI
Trump upset Smithsonian shows 'how bad slavery was'
Aug. 19 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump stepped up his criticisms of the Smithsonian on Tuesday, deriding the museums for its negative portrayal of slavery in American history. Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform that he would direct his attorneys to "review" the Smithsonian in the same way his administration has sought to reshape colleges and universities. The post comes a week after the White House announced it was subjecting the influential museum consortium to an unprecedented examination of its materials, signaling it had become a focal point in Trump's efforts to transform cultural institutions. In his post, Trump wrote that museums all over the country are the "last remaining segment of 'woke.'" "The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been -- Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future," Trump wrote. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., reacted with a post on X, writing that if "Trump thinks slavery wasn't bad, he clearly needs to spend more time in a museum." Roughly 17 million people visited one of the Smithsonian's 21 museums and galleries last year. Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, who is the first African American to lead the institution and has held the position since 2019, has previously commented on the importance of acknowledging slavery's impact on American history. "I believe strongly that you cannot understand America without understanding slavery, that our notions of freedom, our notions of liberty are juxtaposed with our notions of enslavement," he said in an interview on Face the Nation in 2021. "And so I think that it's not about pointing blame, it's not about remembering difficult moments just to hurt." Last week, three White House aides wrote to Bunch in a letter notifying him the museum would be subject to a review to "ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions." The reshaping of the Smithsonian and its galleries and museums has been part the Trump administration's goal to remove left-leaning ideology from the federal government and cultural institutions. In March, Trump signed an executive order directing the Smithsonian to eliminate "divisive" and "anti-American ideology" from its museums, pointing to exhibits that "promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive." He also named himself chairman of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, seemingly in opposition to its having hosted performances he disagreed with for promoting so-called woke ideology. The move prompted many performances and performers to cancel shows.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to 'anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused" anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions," Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. "The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome," said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant's positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration's activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who's trying to enter the United States," said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They're allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.'
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Top Oversight Democrat: DOJ plan to release Epstein files in ‘batches' a ‘cover-up'
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said the plan for the Department of Justice to respond in 'batches' to the committee's subpoena for files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein amounts to a 'cover-up.' 'Releasing the Epstein files in batches just continues this White House cover-up,' Garcia said in a statement Tuesday. 'The American People will not accept anything short of the full, unredacted Epstein files.' Garcia's statement came as the clock struck noon Tuesday, the deadline for the Department of Justice to turn over documents and communications relating to the 'Epstein files' pursuant to an Oversight panel subpoena issued earlier this month. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the chair of the panel, said Monday \the DOJ was going through the material, but it would take time to ensure 'identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted.' He said the DOJ would begin to give the committee records pursuant to the subpoena on Friday. 'In a bipartisan vote, the Committee demanded complete compliance with our subpoena,' Garcia said in the statement. 'Handpicked, partial productions are wholly insufficient and potentially misleading, especially after Attorney General Bondi bragged about having the entirety of the Epstein files on her desk mere months ago.' Comer issued the subpoena to the DOJ pursuant to a Democratic-led motion in a subcommittee in July to seek the 'full, unredacted Epstein files,' which passed with support from three Republicans on the panel. In that same subcommittee meeting, Republicans offered a successful motion to subpoena a swath of former federal officials in the Epstein probe, including former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and several former attorneys general and FBI directors. The first of those depositions occurred Monday when former Attorney General Bill Barr, who held the job in President Trump's first term, spoke to the panel. Comer told reporters on Monday that Barr testified he did not know of any information that would implicate Trump. Garcia, though, said Barr during his deposition 'could not clear President Trump of wrongdoing,' calling on Comer to release the full unedited transcript of Barr's deposition to the public. 'We will keep pressing until the American people get the truth — every document, every fact, in full,' Garcia said. 'The administration must comply with our subpoena, by law.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
