Trump releases Martin Luther King assassination files
Files were posted, opens new tab on the website of the National Archives, which said more would be released.
King died of an assassin's bullet in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 4, 1968, as he increasingly extended his attention from a nonviolent campaign for equal rights for African Americans to economic issues and calls for peace. His death shook the United States in a year that would also bring race riots, anti-Vietnam war demonstrations and the assassination of presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump's administration released thousands of pages of digital documents related to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and former President John F. Kennedy, who was killed in 1963.
Trump promised on the campaign trail to provide more transparency about Kennedy's death. Upon taking office, he also ordered aides to present a plan for the release of records relating to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and King.
The FBI kept files on King in the 1950s and 1960s - even wiretapping his phones - because of what the bureau falsely said at the time were his suspected ties to communism during the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union. In recent years, the FBI has acknowledged that as an example of "abuse and overreach" in its history.
The civil rights leader's family asked those who engage with the files to "do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for our family's continuing grief," and condemned "any attempts to misuse these documents."
"Now more than ever, we must honor his sacrifice by committing ourselves to the realization of his dream – a society rooted in compassion, unity, and equality," they said in a statement.
"During our father's lifetime, he was relentlessly targeted by an invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign orchestrated by J. Edgar Hoover through the Federal Bureau of Investigation," the family, including his two living children, Martin III, 67, and Bernice, 62, said, referring to the then-FBI director.
James Earl Ray, a segregationist and drifter, confessed to killing King but later recanted. He died in prison in 1998.
King's family said it had filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit in Tennessee in 1999 that led to a jury unanimously concluding "that our father was the victim of a conspiracy involving Loyd Jowers and unnamed co-conspirators, including government agencies as a part of a wider scheme. The verdict also affirmed that someone other than James Earl Ray was the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. Our family views that verdict as an affirmation of our long-held beliefs."
Jowers, once a Memphis police officer, told ABC's Prime Time Live in 1993 that he participated in a plot to kill King. A 2023 Justice Department report, opens new tab called his claims dubious.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Tulsi Gabbard says ‘further documents' to be released today proving ‘Obama coup'
U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has promised that more documents will be released on Wednesday to substantiate her allegation that former President Barack Obama 'manufactured' evidence to suggest Russia helped Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. Gabbard announced on Friday that she was referring Obama administration officials – including ex-FBI director James Comey, ex-CIA director John Brennan, and her own predecessor James Clapper – to the Justice Department over their roles in the alleged plot to undermine Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton. She subsequently accused the Democrat of orchestrating a 'yearslong coup' against Trump during an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News 's Sunday Morning Futures. Central to her claim is a National Security Council (NSC) meeting held on December 9, 2016, at which, she alleges, the 44th president ordered a new report be compiled detailing 'the tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election' in the Republican's favor, overruling an earlier, less certain assessment. The report in question was duly published in January 2017. A spokesperson for Obama said on Tuesday: 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. 'These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee led by then-chairman [and now U.S. Secretary of State] Marco Rubio.' Speaking to Newsmax last night, Gabbard was confronted with Obama's rebuttal by host Rob Schmitt and responded: 'We will be releasing further documents tomorrow that will refute that statement. 'We will be pulling a whole host of statements that were made by the Obama administration, by Hillary Clinton, by senior Democrat officials, by their friends in the media that state, over and over again, after this January 2017 manufactured intelligence document was created, that repeat the narrative.' Asked what quotes she had gathered, she answered: 'John Brennan says there is strong consensus among us to support the CIA claim Russian hackers aided Donald Trump's election; Hillary Clinton said, 'I would be president if not for the Russian hackers supporting Donald Trump.' 'There is a vast body of evidence and intelligence that debunks and refutes this statement you've just read and others coming from some of the Democrat leaders in Congress today.' Gabbard also claimed that new whistleblowers had come forward since her initial announcement and added: 'The legal path forward will be up to the Department of Justice to determine. However, I will say how essential it is as an American that we hold people accountable, no matter how powerful they are, no matter what position they have held. 'It is essential that for the future of our nation and our democratic republic, that accountability must occur.' In a second interview with Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, again on Fox, Gabbard once more refuted Obama's denial and said it was he, not her, that was engaged in 'the art of deflection.' She insisted that, in late 2016, 'the intelligence community had one assessment, that Russia did not have the intent or capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election' but that verdict abruptly changed after the NSC meeting at which Clapper was ordered to issue a new version detailing 'how, not if' Moscow had meddled. Gabbard also accused Obama's intelligence officials of using 'already discredited information like the Steele dossier' to stand up their argument. Trump himself has latched onto her claims, posting about them multiple times over the weekend on social media, on one occasion circulating an AI TikTok meme imagining Obama being arrested in the Oval Office and sent to jail. However, his critics have, like Obama, argued that the whole story is just an attempt to distract from the ongoing furore over his administration's failure to release its files on Jeffrey Epstein. On Tuesday's instalment of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough presented a 14-point 'laundry list' of subjects raised in the last two weeks to distract from the Epstein case, with the Obama conspiracy appearing alongside such issues as expat comedian Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship status and the potential renaming of the Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians. Connecticut Democratic Rep. Jim Himes told the same network yesterday: 'When people like Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump accuse an ex-president of a capital crime that is punishable by death, who is going to die? Who is going to die because they've decided that they need a distraction away from the Epstein calamity.' 'Gabbard nonsense' was cooked up 'purely as a distraction from Epstein,' an opinion shared by ex-Republican congressman Denver Riggleman. Democratic National Committee delegate Kaivan Shroff went further, lashing out at the intelligence chief on Newsmax by saying that Gabbard 'has built her career as a stooge for dictators and that is why Donald Trump picked her… [The president] is embroiled in so many scandals dividing his base that he wants to distract with this.'
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ghislaine Maxwell's brother thanks Donald Trump for his ‘positive statement' about his sister in 2020
Ian Maxwell, the brother of jailed Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, has thanked President Donald Trump for making a 'positive statement' about his sister in 2020 and showing her 'humanity.' Appearing on Piers Morgan Uncensored on Tuesday to discuss the revived furore over Epstein after Trump's Justice Department said that no 'client list' belonging to the late billionaire pedophile existed, Ian Maxwell once more defended Ghislaine, who was jailed in 2022 for her role in the disgraced financier's sex trafficking operation. Asked by Morgan whether she had 'pulled the wool over your eyes' regarding her involvement in Epstein's crimes, Maxwell responded: 'No, I believe my sister. 'I've known her [for] 60 years, Piers. You know, I'm not going to suddenly say she started pulling the wool. I don't think so. I don't believe so. Not for a second.' Pivoting to Trump, Maxwell said: 'President Trump was asked the only time, I believe, in public – at the tail end of his presidency, so, you know, November, December 2021 [sic] – about Ghislaine and he said, 'You know, I don't know much about it, but I wish her well.' 'And I don't think that anyone else showed the slightest piece of humanity, not anybody at that time, and yet he did. He didn't need to. He's the president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world. He could've just sloughed it off. He didn't. He made a positive statement. I am very grateful to that and I know Ghislaine was too.' The comment Maxwell referred to was actually made by Trump in July 2020 when Ghislaine was arrested and charged with sex trafficking. 'I haven't really been following it too much,' the president said at the time. 'I just wish her well, frankly. I've met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach. And I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well.' Asked about it a month later by then-Axios reporter Jonathan Swan, Trump doubled down and said: 'I wish her well, I'd wish you well, I'd wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty. 'Her boyfriend died in jail and people are still trying to figure out how did it happen? Was it suicide? Was he killed? And I do wish her well. I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad for anybody.' The president remains under pressure to explain his past friendship with Epstein after the Justice Department's attempt to draw a line under the case sparked an angry backlash from his own supporters, with many pointing to Attorney General Pam Bondi 's declaration earlier this year that his case file was 'sitting on my desk waiting to be reviewed' as suggesting its release was imminent. Archive photos and video indicate that Trump and Epstein knew each other socially in New York and Florida from the 1980s to the early 2000s, and the president is on record as praising the abuser as a 'terrific guy.' However, he has since distanced himself and is currently suing The Wall Street Journal for alleging that he once sent him a lewd hand-drawn birthday card. The president has tried hard to change the narrative over the last two weeks, attacking numerous old foes on social media in scattergun fashion, rebuking his own 'past' supporters for dwelling on the subject, and complaining to the press at a recent cabinet meeting: 'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. Are people still talking about this guy, this creep?' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on Tuesday that, at the direction of AG Bondi, he had contacted Ghislaine's legal counsel about arranging an interview with her and declared: 'No one is above the law – and no lead is off-limits.' Trump signaled his approval of that step in the Oval Office shortly afterwards, saying it 'sounded appropriate.' Meanwhile, a panel of judges has ruled that more information is needed before they can rule on the release of grand jury testimony related to Epstein, and House Speaker Mike Johnson has declined to hold a House vote on whether to order the release of all federal files on him until after Congress's summer recess.
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why are we so fascinated by the Coldplay couple?
It wasn't just that a man got caught cheating on his wife. It was that he did it in public. With the whole stadium watching. With Chris Martin, unknowingly, teeing it up. With a camera zooming in at the exact wrong – or maybe karmically perfect – moment. The CEO. The HR director. The affair. The panic. The humiliation. All of it caught, dissected and shared a million times over. We didn't watch that video because we love Coldplay (though, don't we?). We didn't watch just for the scandal. We watched because – despite our small steps toward enlightenment – we're all starving for the satisfaction of seeing someone finally get what they deserve. That's the part we need to talk about. According to a 2023 study in Computers in Human Behavior Reports, the satisfaction we feel during public shaming isn't just about justice – it's about pleasure. Their research found that people experience schadenfreude not only because they believe the person deserved it, but because it simply feels good to watch someone face consequences. We're not just looking for moral clarity. We're chasing the emotional high that comes with it. We don't just want closure, we want content. And cheating, exposed in public, has become the most satisfying genre of all. We as a culture are obsessed with catching cheaters – not just for the drama, but for the justice. We want to see betrayal punished. We want the liar exposed, the philanderer humiliated, the partner who was faithful and trusting to be vindicated. And if we can't get that in our own lives, we'll take it from strangers. This hunger has only grown over the years as the morally hollow have made careers out of turning scandal into spectacle and walking away untouched. But when the deception is undeniable, and the exposure unfiltered, it gives us something we rarely get: visible accountability. Within hours of that five-second clip surfacing, the internet did what it does best: turned a private moment into public symbolism. Their names were revealed along with their titles. Until the camera found them, they looked unbothered, cozy. Then her hand flew to cover her face. He ducked and waddled behind the seats. Then the entire internet gasped, and reached for their popcorn and pitchforks. You could feel the collective applause ripple through the comments section. We all know the feeling of being deceived. We know the sharp loneliness of loving someone who's looking elsewhere, of having suspicions but not proof, accusations returned with a side of gaslighting. So when someone gets caught in 4K, we devour the moment. The visuals were almost too perfect: the Coldplay ballad, the cheering crowd turning confused, the abrupt shift from smug to stunned. Don't we all wish we had that experience? A camera that didn't look away. A crowd that said: 'We see it, too.' Because in our own lives, we confront; they deflect. We cry; they move on. And there's no applause, no witness. Just you and an unrelenting ache, their version of what happened and the truth. The CEO and the HR director are merely serving as stand-ins for the guy who ghosted you after two years, the woman who swore nothing was going on with her co-worker, the husband who moved on so fast you wondered if you hallucinated your entire marriage. Watching those two squirm on screen is a kind of spiritual revenge. We tell ourselves it's about ethics, boundaries, accountability. But at the end of the day, don't we just want someone to answer for the betrayal we never got closure for? Of course, pain is not performance. And justice is not the same as humiliation. Public shaming feels like accountability – but it rarely is accountability. As Jon Ronson warns in his book So You've Been Publicly Shamed: 'An instant digital mob justice can devastate without offering redemption.' Watching strangers get exposed might feel good temporarily. We nod at the cosmic slap, but it doesn't fix the trust broken in a marriage or the respect damaged in a workplace. It doesn't change who they were when no one was watching. There's a flip side to witnessing this embarrassment that flickers just below the surface. We might laugh, but something in us recoils as we imagine the real cost to those involved: lost jobs, fractured marriages, psychological fallout for their children. A hyperlink trail that will follow them to the grave. As Evan Nierman, author of The Cancel Culture Curse and CEO of the crisis PR firm Red Banyan, puts it: 'The internet has a way of locking people into their worst moment. When a misstep goes viral, the court of public opinion rarely allows space for explanation, nuance, or repair.' And once the pile-on begins, it escalates fast. 'Digital shame operates at a scale and speed our psychology isn't built for,' he warns. 'What starts as a laugh can quickly spiral into character assassination, with consequences that long outlast a viral moment.' Yet this moment – our collective gasp at betrayal made universal – revealed something crucial: we're craving truth, acknowledgment. We're craving slow, messy, quiet reckoning with accountability that extends beyond the tap-and-scroll. But in a world where real accountability is rare, a viral headline like this feels close enough – as though love, loyalty and truth might still mean something, even if only for a moment on the Jumbotron. Jessica Ciencin Henriquez is a writer in Ojai, California, and the author of the forthcoming essay collection, If You Loved Me, You Would Know. You can find her on social media @TheWriterJess
