How close are we to the truth on JFK? Oliver Stone and author explain how there is much to uncover
Stone, who directed "JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass," recently made a case to Congress to re-open the investigation and pour over everything from the crime scene, the rifle and bullets, the autopsy and more.
The 80,000 pages of Kennedy files were released March 18, opening a trove of insight into what could prove or disprove how Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963.
Stone explained during the congressional hearing that he had encountered previous roadblocks for his 1991 film "JFK" with the CIA, questioning the agency's handling of the files he had requested regarding the assassination.
"Although mandated by law from the Central Intelligence Agency, which operated and still operates as a taxpayer-funded intelligence agency that arrogantly considered itself outside our laws, they say things like, 'We will get back to you on that,' and they never do," Stone told Congress.
Stone told Fox News on Wednesday that the "spirit" of the law, being the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, is that the CIA would only release the files with a national security exception.
"This is a question of national security, and it just keeps getting delayed and kicked around," Stone said on "Jesse Watters Primetime."
DiEugenio, who wrote "JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass," touched on the order in October 2017, when President Donald Trump directed agencies to reevaluate redactions and disclose any information that no longer warranted withholding.
These orders for disclosure were subsequently delayed by the Biden administration in 2021, 2022 and 2023, according to a White House fact sheet.
"Instead of declassifying everything like he said he [Trump] wanted to do, he ended up delaying it, alright? And he even delayed it into the Biden administration," DiEugenio said, adding that the Biden administration worsened the issue.
DiEugenio praised Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., for taking a "legislative attack on this subject," saying he was hopeful that with people working on it from multiple angles, Americans will "finally" be able to access all documents on the JFK assassination.
"I really hope that between both of these angles, we finally will get every last piece of paper on this case that's haunted America for the last six decades," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
The scramble to keep public media afloat
'The people who are paying the price are local communities, in an era where local community connection is being eroded and local news is in crisis,' Tim Isgitt, CEO of Public Media Company — a nonprofit public media consulting firm that launched the bridge fund — told POLITICO. 'These members of Congress voted to kill what, in many communities, is their only source of local news and information and they did it eyes wide open.' Conservatives in Congress have long sought to eliminate federal funding for public media, and scored a major victory with Trump's rescissions package. In May, Trump issued an executive order looking to restrict all funding for NPR and PBS. CPB, PBS and NPR challenged the order. But Congress, which appropriated more than $500 million to CPB annually, codified the president's move in this year's Rescissions Act. 'I don't want to sugarcoat this, but the loss of CPB funding to local rural communities is devastating,' said Isgitt. 'We're doing what we can to do what Congress failed to do: protecting stations.' Isgitt expects things to worsen in November, when CPB normally doled out funding to affiliates. Newsrooms that depended on at least 30 percent of funding from CPB are now at risk of going dark, he said. 'From Mississippi to Idaho, local public media organizations are run by people who live in their communities, governed by people who live in their communities and reporting on community issues,' said Isgitt. The loss of CPB funding, he added, will 'have ripple effects across the system.'
Business Wire
27 minutes ago
- Business Wire
PublicSquare Grateful for Closure of Politically Motivated CFPB Investigation into Credova
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--PSQ Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PSQH) ('PublicSquare' or the 'Company') was pleased to receive notification from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ('CFPB') that it had formally closed the investigation into Credova Financial, LLC ('Credova'), a wholly owned subsidiary of PublicSquare. As the Bureau confirmed to Credova, it was closing the investigation because it 'has determined that this investigation exemplifies the type of weaponization against disfavored industries and individuals that President Trump and Acting Director Vought are committed to ending,' and that 'the record of this investigation clearly demonstrates that it was conducted in a biased manner that targeted Credova's exercise of its constitutional rights and facilitation of others' exercise of their constitutional rights.' The Bureau determined that its investigation of Credova 'was not aimed at protecting consumers, but at suppressing activities protected by the First and Second Amendment.' 'The conclusion of the CFPB's investigation confirms the strength and integrity of our company and validates the trust our merchants and consumers place in us,' commented Michael Seifert, Chairman and CEO of PublicSquare. 'This outcome is a win for our entire company, our board, our customers, and a 2nd Amendment community that has seen years of government attempts to regulate businesses like ours out of existence. We would like to thank President Trump, Acting Director Vought, CFPB Chief Legal Officer Mark Paoletta, CFPB Senior Adviser Jeff Clark, and the CFPB staff for their internal review of this investigation and commitment to ensuring the Bureau operates free from political bias and suppression of constitutional rights. PublicSquare remains committed to scaling responsibly, delivering long-term value to our shareholders, and advancing our mission to build an economy rooted in liberty.' 'For more than four years, Credova was forced to defend itself from what we always believed was a politically motivated investigation that was less about consumer protection and more about targeting lawful commerce tied to the Second Amendment,' stated Dusty Wunderlich, Chief Strategy Officer & Board Member of PublicSquare and former President of Credova. 'From our view, this was the most recent in a line of attempts to weaponize government against businesses that refuse to conform to a specific political agenda. We did not yield. We stood firm in defense of our mission, our merchants, and the constitutional rights of the Americans we serve. The conclusion of this investigation is a victory not just for our company, but for every business and citizen who believes that freedom must never be compromised.' Blake Masters, PublicSquare Board Member and leader in the 2nd Amendment Community, commented, 'The closure of this investigation is a strong reminder that when businesses stand firm against government intimidation, freedom wins. This victory affirms that the right to commerce, like the right to self-defense, is fundamental to our liberty.' About Credova Credova (a subsidiary of PublicSquare) was founded to fill a critical gap in the marketplace, providing modern, point-of-sale financing solutions to merchants and consumers in underserved sectors such as outdoor recreation and the firearms industry. For many merchants, Credova and PublicSquare are their only access to the kinds of financial tools that other industries take for granted. About PublicSquare PublicSquare is a Financial Technology Company that protects life, family, and liberty. PublicSquare operates under three segments: Financial Technology, Marketplace, and Brands. PublicSquare's Financial Technology segment includes Credova, a consumer financing service, and PSQ Payments, a 'cancel-proof' payments company. The primary mission of the Marketplace segment is to help consumers 'shop their values' and put purpose behind their purchases. PublicSquare leverages data and insights from the Marketplace to assess its customers' needs and provide high-quality, wholly owned financial products and brands. PublicSquare's Brands segment comprises EveryLife, a premium D2C life-affirming baby products company. The PublicSquare Marketplace is free to join for both consumers and business owners. Download the app on the App Store or Google Play, or visit to learn more.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem
The redistricting war going on across the country began with the president asking — or, as some see it, directing — Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Given that the party that holds the White House typically loses House seats in the midterms, and with a thin GOP majority after the 2024 election, the president is looking for any advantage to hold the House. This action has elicited outrage among Democrats, pushing the most populous state, California, to redraw its map. Several other states, including Ohio, Florida and Indiana, are also investigating the possibility of redrawing their maps, in an all-out gerrymander fest to squeeze every last seat out of Congress. Yet the maps drawn after the 2020 census were already well gerrymandered. Of the 435 total seats, just 36 were deemed competitive in 2022, defined as winners determined by a margin of victory below 5 percent. In 2024, the number of competitive seats jumped to 43. Though the problem appears to be the gerrymandering of congressional maps, the real problem is how representation is determined. The popular vote in each congressional district determines its winner, but the way the population of each state is dissected into discrete districts partitions the popular vote across each state. Since each district seat is represented by a winner-take-all vote, the design of each state's congressional map effectively determines how its voters are represented in Congress. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Its nine congressional seats are all represented by Democrats. In the 2024 election, five of the seats were uncontested. Among the four contested races, the closest margin of victory was 13 percent. Yet in the presidential race, 36 percent of the votes cast were for Donald Trump, the same percentage that voted for the Republican candidates in the four contested seats. This begs the question: Should these 36 percent of voters have some GOP representation? A similar situation occurred in Oklahoma, with all five of its congressional seats held by Republications, even though 32 percent of the votes cast were for Kamala Harris. Given that computational redistricting can draw House maps that are either maximally gerrymandered, provide sensible voter representation, or anything in between, there is no need for maps to be drawn by redistricting commissions, whether they are independent or made up of partisan legislators. The necessary mapping criteria specified by state laws can now be incorporated into mapping algorithms. Examples of such criteria include compactness of districts or preserving communities of interest. The only role for redistricting commissions is to specify the desired bias of the map. Gerrymandered maps demonstrate that we no longer have representation of the people but of the parties, making Congress a de facto House of Mis-Representatives. At the core, the problem is how members of the House are elected, and indirectly, the Electoral College. As long as voter preferences are packed into discrete ongressional district seats, the current gerrymandering wars will continue to discount and ignore voters. In fact, Trump told a group in 2024 during his campaign that they would not need to vote again if he were elected. Despite not knowing precisely what he had in mind, he may indeed be correct, given that representation of voters is mostly predetermined. Is there a solution? Continue to hold elections with congressional districts. However, the number of seats won by each party should be allocated by each party's state popular vote. Then the top vote getters, either in absolute number or in percentage of votes won, across all the districts from each party are assigned seats, up to the number of seats won by the party. This means that all the representatives in each state would be at-large, representing all the people of the state. A formula for rounding would be needed to determine which party gets the partial seat fraction, much like how congressional apportionment is used after each census to determine the number of House seats in each state. With such a system, in Massachusetts, Republicans would have won two congressional seats and Democrats would have won seven. In Oklahoma, Republicans would have won four seats and Democrats would have won one. Such a process would neutralize the impact of gerrymandering, since each state's haul of seats would be determined by the state popular vote, giving every eligible voter the added incentive to cast their vote. The net effect of such a system would likely not yield a difference in the overall number of House seats held by each party. It would, however, redistribute party representation across all 50 states. Most importantly, it would neutralize the benefits of gerrymandering to the parties, since each state's popular vote would determine representation. —Such a new system would require a change in the Constitution something that is highly unlikely in this vitriolic political environment. Yet without such a change, gerrymandering will continue to erode the influence of voters and elevate the power of parties. Texas's actions to redraw their congressional map midterm has unleashed a war on democracy. More accurately, it has taken gerrymander politics to unprecedented levels. The final outcome will be less voter representation and more partisan party politics. What the Texas 'seat steal' effort demonstrates is that, in the eyes of parties, voters are no longer relevant. Every voter in the 2026 midterm elections who is disgusted with such disrespect should write in an unnamed candidate, 'Other' — if such a name won a seat, it will send a strong message that gerrymandering is no longer acceptable, that the current toxic mapping system is shattered beyond repair, and a new model for earning representation is needed. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He is the founder of the .
