Lauren Boebert Mistakes Oliver Stone For Roger Stone At JFK Hearing
During a hearing about the recently released files regarding the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Boebert asked the director for his thoughts on the recent document dump.
But while Oliver Stone laid out his own JFK assassination theory in his 1991 film 'JFK,' Boebert was apparently unaware of this. Instead, she asked him about a book she claimed he wrote about the assassination and President Lyndon B. Johnson.
'Mr. Stone, you wrote a book accusing LBJ of being involved in the killing of President Kennedy,' Boebert asked the director. 'Did these most recent releases confirm or negate your initial charge?'
Stone was understandably confused by the question.
'Being involved in the assassination of President Kennedy? No, I didn't,' he said, before discussing his film.
'If you look closely at the film, it accuses President Johnson of being part of a complicit and a cover-up of the case, but not in the assassination itself, which I don't know,' Stone explained.
Jefferson Morley, a journalist and author who was sitting next to the director, realized what had happened and quickly clarified the situation to the congresswoman. He suggested that Boebert had confused Oliver Stone, the director who she was speaking to on Tuesday, with Roger Stone, the GOP dirty trickster and author of the 2013 book, 'The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ.'
'I think you're confusing Mr. Oliver Stone with Mr. Roger Stone,' Morley told Boebert. 'It's Roger Stone who implicated LBJ in the assassination of the president. It's not my friend Oliver Stone.'
Boebert's response was a bit out of character for a Republican politician: She actually admitted being incorrect.
'I may have misinterpreted that, and I apologize for that,' Boebert said.
Not surprisingly, Boebert was mocked for the mistake.
Unredacted JFK Assassination Files Released, Sending History Buffs Hunting For New Clues
Trump Signs Order Declassifying JFK, RFK, MLK Jr. Assassination Documents
JFK's Grandson Reacts To Donald Trump's Planned Release Of Assassination Files
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former Iowa administrator Adam Steen announces GOP campaign for governor
Adam Steen, former Iowa director of Administrative Services, was joined by his sons, Maverick and Ryker and his wife Kasey Steen, as announced he was running for governor Aug. 19, 2025 at Berean Church in Pleasant Hill. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Republican Adam Steen, former director of the Iowa Department of Administrative Services, announced his campaign for governor Tuesday, labeling himself as a 'faith guy' in the race to succeed Gov. Kim Reynolds. Steen held a campaign kickoff event Tuesday at Berean Church in Pleasant Hill, starting with a musical performance from Nathan Thomas and the A17 worship band and an introduction from Pastor Gary Pilcher. As he introduced himself, Steen said there had been some speculation online about what type of candidate he would be. 'Let me tell you, from my own lips, who I am: I am the faith guy,' Steen said. 'I'm a Jesus guy. I'm a Make America Great Again guy. I'm a common-sense policy, America first, people first guy.' In addition to being a credentialed minister, Steen said some of his highest profile commitments to faith were as DAS director. The department had canceled a Satanic Temple of Iowa holiday celebration event at the Iowa Capitol in December 2024, with Steen saying the event was denied because it included 'elements that are harmful to minors.' Steen said at the campaign event he was 'the guy that stood in front of the Satanists when they blatantly targeted our children, and I'm the guy getting sued by the Satanists for protecting our children.' He also said there was another event request at the Capitol he denied, for an all-ages, family-friendly drag show. He said this planned event was not as well known, but that he believed it was the right thing to do despite being at risk of getting sued. Steen, appointed in 2021 to serve as DAS director in Reynolds' administration, said he led some of the major policies changing state government, like the government agency restructuring signed into law in 2023. Speaking with reporters, Steen said he had discussed running for the seat with Reynolds and came to a 'mutual agreement' that he would resign from his position if he ran for the office. 'Today, at 10 a.m., I walked into the governor's office and I submitted my resignation,' Steen told the crowd. 'Today I walked away from a job that I loved. I walked away from a job that I loved, so I could join the fight and defend the state that I love.' Before leading DAS, Steen was the director of business development at Syverson Strege, a financial services firm, and had previously owned a management consulting firm called 25 Connections. He also was a minor league baseball relief pitcher in 2002, playing for the Philadelphia Phillies and Batavia Muckdogs. Steen highlighted his commitment to protecting private property rights, but did not go into detail on his views about the use of eminent domain for carbon capture pipeline projects — the subject of a contentious bill that was vetoed by Reynolds this session. 'I was working with her at this time, and I support everything that Governor Reynolds is doing,' Steen said. When asked about his views on the use of eminent domain in these projects, he said 'I'm a pro-property rights, pro-private ownership person.' Steen is the latest Republican to join the field of GOP candidates seeking to take the mantle from Reynolds after she announced she would not run for reelection in 2026. U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra and state Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, currently have 'exploratory' committees for governor, while Rep. Eddie Andrews, R-Johnston, and former state legislator Brad Sherman have announced campaigns. Iowa Auditor Rob Sand is considered the current frontrunner to become the Democratic gubernatorial candidate. Former political operative Julie Stauch and Democrat Paul Dahl are also running to become the party nominee.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does Trump have the power to ban mail-in ballots in U.S. elections?
By Jack Queen (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump wants to ban mail-in ballots in federal elections, a form of voting popular with many Americans. About three in 10 ballots were cast through the mail in the 2024 general election, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Trump, a Republican, does not have clear legal authority to do this, though his allies in Congress and state governments could enact policies barring the practice. Here is a look at Trump's authority and how the law could be changed. CAN TRUMP UNILATERALLY BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? Only states and the U.S. Congress can pass laws regulating elections. A unilateral ban by the president on mail-in ballots would likely exceed Trump's limited authority to enforce existing law. In a Monday social media post, Trump said mail-in ballots are susceptible to fraud and that he would lead a movement to ban them, beginning with an executive order bringing "honesty" to the November 2026 midterm elections. Republicans have filed scores of lawsuits seeking to end mail-in voting in recent years, citing possible fraud. Democrats generally support mail-in ballots as a way to expand access to voting. Voter fraud in the U.S. is extremely rare, multiple studies have shown. White House representatives provided a general statement about Trump's election policies but did not answer questions about his legal authority to ban mail-in ballots or what an executive order would say. COULD TRUMP'S ALLIES BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? States are responsible for administering their votes under the U.S. Constitution, and Republican-controlled legislatures could pass laws banning mail-in ballots so long as they do not conflict with federal law. Congress could ban the use of mail-in ballots in federal elections and override state laws protecting their use, but Trump's Republican Party has slim majorities in Congress and would face difficulty getting past opposition by Democrats. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats. To pass a mail-in ballot ban they would need to end the filibuster, a longstanding tradition requiring 60 of the chamber's 100 members to approve most legislation. State and federal laws banning mail-in voting could be challenged in court as unconstitutional impediments to voting. WHAT OTHER POWERS DO PRESIDENTS HAVE OVER ELECTIONS? Presidents in the U.S. have some discretion in enforcing election laws, and Trump could try to use those powers to end or restrict mail-in voting, though it is unclear how. In June, a federal judge blocked parts of an executive order by Trump requiring voters to prove they are U.S. citizens and attempting to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. The Trump administration is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," said U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law. Solve the daily Crossword
