‘JFK' director Oliver Stone to testify to Congress about the newly released assassination files
Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone, whose 1991 film 'JFK' portrayed President John F. Kennedy's assassination as the work of a shadowy government conspiracy, is set to testify to Congress on Tuesday about thousands of newly released government documents surrounding the killing.
Scholars say the files that President Donald Trump ordered to be released showed nothing undercutting the conclusion that a lone gunman killed Kennedy. Many documents were previously released but contained newly removed redactions, including Social Security numbers, angering people whose personal information was disclosed.
The first hearing of the House Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets comes five decades after the Warren Commission investigation concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, a 24-year-old former Marine, acted alone in fatally shooting Kennedy as his motorcade finished a parade route in downtown Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, who chairs the task force, said last month that she wants to work with writers and researchers to help solve 'one of the biggest cold case files in U.S. history.' Scholars and historians haven't viewed the assassination as a cold case, viewing the evidence for Oswald as a lone gunman as strong.
Stone's 'JFK' was nominated for eight Oscars, including best picture, and won two. It grossed more than $200 million but was also dogged by questions about its factuality.
The last formal congressional investigation of Kennedy's assassination ended in 1978, when a House committee issued a report concluding that the Soviet Union, Cuba, organized crime, the CIA and the FBI weren't involved, but Kennedy 'probably was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.' In 1976, a Senate committee said it had not uncovered enough evidence 'to justify a conclusion that there was a conspiracy.'
The Warren Commission, appointed by Kennedy's successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, concluded that Oswald fired on Kennedy's motorcade from a sniper's perch on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, where Oswald worked. Police arrested Oswald within 90 minutes, and two days later, Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner, shot Oswald during a jail transfer broadcast on live television.
For Tuesday's hearing, the task force also invited Jefferson Morley and James DiEugenio, who both have written books arguing for conspiracies behind the assassination. Morley is editor of the JFK Facts blog and vice president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, a repository for files related to the assassination. He has praised Luna as being open to new information surrounding the killing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump-Musk feud live updates: President says Tesla boss will face ‘serious consequences' if he funds Dems to run against GOP
President Donald Trump has said that he has 'no intention' of speaking to Elon Musk following their public blowup over the Republican spending package up for debate in Congress. 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Trump told NBC News on Saturday. 'I have no intention of speaking to him.' 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the president,' he added. Trump also said that Musk will face 'serious consequences' if he chooses to use his significant wealth to fund Democrats. Musk's opposition to the spending bill could lead the billionaire to fund challengers to Republicans who voted for it. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News. This comes after Musk deleted his tweet in which he claimed that Trump is in 'the Epstein Files.' Musk initially shared the post on Thursday as the spat between him and the president exploded. The billionaire also suggested that Trump should be impeached. 'The Epstein Files' is a phrase used to describe information that U.S. authorities hold on the disgraced financier and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 08:00 Musk was Trump's tweeter-in-chief. Now he's using X against him James Liddell and Alicja Hagopian write: Elon Musk's X profile is like a window into his psyche: an inescapable stream of consciousness where impulsive tweets reveal his unfiltered thoughts and shifting moods. Musk harnessed his social media platform to propel Donald Trump to the White House, feeding anti-Democrat content and election conspiracy theories to his followers. Now Musk is turning that same platform – home to nearly 600 million monthly users – against him. After posting earlier in the week that Trump's signature budget policy was a 'disgusting abomination' that will 'drive America into debt slavery', the billionaire is openly taunting Trump on X, even calling for his impeachment. Musk was Trump's tweeter-in-chief. Now he's using X against him He tweeted about Donald Trump incessantly, then Elon Musk rebuked him. James Liddell and Alicja Hagopian take a look at how the Trump-Musk breakup unfolded, through X Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 07:00 WATCH: JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 06:00 VOICES: Why Trump's second state visit to the UK may never happen... Jon Sopel writes: Whatever accusations that detractors could level at Sir Keir Starmer, the words show pony, flashy or flamboyant wouldn't be among them. He hates the performative in politics and isn't much interested in the flummery that goes with high office. However, there has been one notable occasion when he did go in for some carefully rehearsed and orchestrated theatricality. It was when he sat down with Donald Trump in the Oval Office; the world's press was there to record the occasion. He reached into the inside pocket of his suit jacket and produced a letter with the red royal seal on the envelope – and handed it to a beaming Donald Trump. Why Trump's state visit to the UK may never happen... Inviting Trump for an unprecedented second state visit was a clever diplomatic ploy by the PM, writes Jon Sopel. But actually hosting it would be fraught with risks – so is the plan to make it quietly go away? Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 05:00 Stephen King puts the Trump and Musk feud into perspective with one scathing question Greg Evans writes: The acclaimed author Stephen King has issued a blistering critique of the ongoing feud between US president Donald Trump and his former ally, Elon Musk. This week, the two former allies bitterly fell out with each sharing strong accusations against the other on social media. Musk, who infamously invested millions into Trump's campaign and quickly dubbed himself 'first buddy,' became the head of the Department of Government Efficiency. The department was tasked with slashing the federal budget. However, Musk soon found himself ousted from the president's inner circle after clashing with Trump over his proposed spending bill. 'The world actually has problems,' complained the author when addressing the fallout between the pair Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 04:00 Donald Trump arrives at a UFC event shortly after sending the National Guard to crush anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles Shortly after the White House issued a statement confirming that it was deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to break up the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump made an appearance at UFC 316 in Newark, New Jersey. Graig Graziosi8 June 2025 03:26 WATCH: Trump defends decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to US to face charges Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 03:15 Republicans call for an end to Trump-Musk feud: 'I hope it doesn't distract us' Seung Min Kim and Chris Megerian write: As the Republican Party anticipates potential fallout from Donald Trump's public dispute with Elon Musk, prominent lawmakers and conservative voices are calling for reconciliation, wary of the repercussions of a sustained conflict. The animosity between the two figures could pose challenges for the Republican agenda, particularly concerning tax and border spending legislation championed by Trump but criticised by Musk. The US president has played down any reconciliation, calling Musk 'the man who has lost his mind' Gustaf Kilander8 June 2025 02:30 White House confirms Trump is sending 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to squash anti-ICE protests White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that President Donald Trump is deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles to arrest anti-ICE demonstrators. Her full statement appears below: 'In recent days, violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California. These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California's feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester. The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs. These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The Commander-in-Chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.' Graig Graziosi8 June 2025 02:28 Trump threatens to use the federal government to "solve the problem" of anti-ICE protests in California Donald Trump broke his silence on the ongoing protests in Los Angeles against ICE agents who carried out a massive raid in the city this weekend. The president threatened to use the power of the federal government to 'solve the problem' in the city if Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass 'can't do their jobs.' Graig Graziosi8 June 2025 01:50
The Herald Scotland
8 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump has taught us one thing: Scotland needs more mega-wealthy people
All joshing aside, what we can say is that what we are witnessing is nothing less than the rapid erosion of American democracy. This is particularly apparent in the prominence given to oligarchs in positions of power in Washington. As always with Trump, this has not been done clandestinely but in the full, public glare. A man without shame, he has surrounded himself with what might best be described as the filthy rich. Read more Rosemary Goring In that regard, he started as he meant to go on. As Evan Osnos writes in his revelatory new book, The Haves and Have-Yachts: Dispatches on the Ultrarich, Trump embraced the plutocracy on January 20, 2025, the day he took office. Within arm's reach of him as he swore his oath were the world's three richest individuals: Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. A step away were Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, and Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. 'There were so many billionaires on stage,' recalls Osnos, 'that the leaders of Congress were relegated to the audience.' Not long thereafter, Trump promoted 13 billionaires to the top ranks of his administration, chief among them Musk, who would soon wield a chainsaw to numerous branches of government and consign thousands of employees to penury. Unelected and unchecked, and pretty much unhindered by the law, Musk and his coevals could do almost whatever they pleased, and thus far they have. Of course, America has always been a place which puts mammon above morals. The pursuit of its fabled dream has had at its heart the amassing of wealth. To become a millionaire was the goal of many of its citizens who believed, misguidedly, that it would lead to that other dream: happiness. As time passed, however, it was not enough to be a millionaire; that was mere shrapnel. The next target was to be a billionaire. First atop that pinnacle was John D. Rockefeller who, through Standard Oil, which refined and marketed nearly 90 percent of the oil produced in America, was the moguls' mogul in what was known as the Gilded Age. In his wake came our own Andrew Carnegie, whose involvement in the steel industry made him so rich he was earning more money than he knew what do with. Rockefeller and Carnegie divided opinion. Muckrakers deemed them unscrupulous, accusing them of bribing political officials, circumventing the law and treating their workers badly. Others took a more benign view, acknowledging that their wealth was often directed towards good causes - in Carnegie's case public libraries, which are, or at least were, one of the bulwarks of a civilised society. Andrew Carnegie (Image: free)Concerned that their path to heaven might be pockmarked with potholes, Rockefeller and Carnegie salved their consciences by remodelling themselves as philanthropists. 'Surplus wealth,' Carnegie wrote, 'is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community.' Whether today's trillionaires feel likewise remains to be seen. The omens do not look promising. As the title of Evan Osnos's book suggests, they are more interested in acquiring yachts the length of Leith Walk than doing anything to elevate humankind. What these people must have are so-called gigayachts – over 100 metres long - which shrinks might say are penis-substitutes. 'Even among the truly rich,' writes Osnos, 'there is a gap between the haves and the have-yachts.' Much of the time, he adds, the yachts 'dwell beyond the reach of ordinary law enforcement. They cruise in international waters, and, when they dock, local cops tend to give them a wide berth; the boats often have private security, and their owners may well be friends with the prime minister.' Sickening, selfish and sinister as all this may be, making you pine for the era of the guillotine, I am not entirely antipathetic to those whose Swiss bank accounts have swelled because of their entrepreneurship. Here in Scotland, where billionaires are rarer than McDonalds on the moon, there is an over-reliance on the state to ensure that everything is properly funded and maintained and that new ventures are allowed to flourish. Read more In my main area of concern – broadly speaking, the arts – dependence on Creative Scotland is unhealthy and monopolist, leading to disenchantment and frustration. Attempting to adhere to the agency's manufactured criteria and its opaque bureaucracy is enough to reduce even the most persistent applicants to apoplexy. There are various individuals and businesses with the means to make a difference, but they are few and far between. Unlike in America, where giving to good causes in the cultural sphere is widespread, no such habit exists in this country. Indeed, the enlightened handful who have sponsored arts events are regarded not with gratitude but suspicion and - in the case of Baillie Gifford's involvement in book festivals - mind-boggling hostility. What's needed is a shift in attitude towards philanthropy, both by those with money and those who need it; such a cultural rethink would allow those with talent to receive help to develop their particular passion. I often think admiringly of the Italian Renaissance and how its flourishing was underwritten in part by the Medicis, whose patronage of Botticelli, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and countless others was pivotal. Sadly, I see no Medici on the horizon. More's the pity, because we need them more than ever. Rosemary Goring is a columnist and author. Her most recent book is Homecoming: The Scottish Years of Mary, Queen of Scots. Its sequel, Exile: The Captive Years of Mary, Queen of Scots, is published next month
The Herald Scotland
8 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Republican infighting fuels concern about Trump tax bill's chances
With Republicans holding the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress and with Democrats showing no sign of wanting to help Trump notch a major win to begin his new administration, lawmakers from Trump's own party are sounding apprehensive about threading the needle before their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get something to the president's desk for signature into law. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill "We're anxious to get to work on it," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters earlier in the week as Republicans and Musk started publicly airing their complaints about the effort. Adding to the challenge: Some of the very House GOP members who last month voted in favor of their 1,100-page version of Trump's tax and policy plan started finding faults of their own that they say meant they'd probably have been a 'no' if they had the chance to do it again. Presidents often aim high to start terms Presidents often try in their first year to build on the momentum of their elections to get major legislation approved. For Joe Biden, it was an infrastructure bill. For Barack Obama, it was overhauling healthcare insurance. For George W. Bush, it was overhauling public education. Trump leapt into action in 2025 with an unprecedented pace of executive orders: 157 through May 23. When he turned to legislation, he persuaded Republican congressional leaders to package all his priorities into one bill, rather than splitting taxes and border security into two different bills, to complete the debate in one fell swoop. More: Everything's an 'emergency': How Trump's executive order record pace is testing the courts Lawmakers often shy away from piling too much into one bill because each contentious provision spurs its own opposition. But faced with the prospect of unanimous Democratic opposition, Trump opted for a strategy that focuses on GOP priorities such as tax relief and border security while personally lobbying reluctant Republicans to stay in line. "Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change," Trump told Congress in a speech March 4. "I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY," he added in a social media post about three months later, on June 2. Musk opposition makes waves Trump's efforts worked in the Republican-led House, which after several days of negotiations and an all-night floor debate voted 215-214 in favor of a plan that had the full backing of the White House. Getting the measure through the Senate - even with the GOP in charge needing just a simple majority of 51 votes - is proving to be its own elusive challenge. Musk, the former head of Trump's bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, spent this past week unloading on the House-passed bill for spending too much money. He called the legislation "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination," and urged lawmakers to "KILL the BILL." More: The post-fight fallout from Trump-Musk battle could get even uglier While Musk's barrage ignited a war with Trump and left many Republicans cringing, deficit hawks in the GOP said they appreciated the world's richest man also pushing for deeper spending cuts from the U.S. government. "I welcome people like Elon Musk that try to hold our feet to the fire," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri. "We often disappoint our voters when we don't do the cuts that we campaign on, when we're not fiscally responsible." But Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, who served in the Air Force for 30 years, said the division between Trump and Musk wasn't a good look for his party, especially when it's trying to advance the primary piece of legislation on the president's agenda. "It's just not helpful," Bacon said. "When you have division, divided teams don't perform as well." 'The opposite of conservative': Sen. Paul on bill Several pockets of Republican senators have voiced concerns about the House-passed legislation. Each group has their issue that they want addressed, and each one presents a hurdle for Trump and GOP leaders like Thune as they try to cobble together a winning 51-vote coalition that can also make it back through the House for another final vote. The Senate factions include one group seeking to cut more spending because the Congressional Budget Office said the House-passed plan would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Others are worried about cutting Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income families. And another handful of senators say they are worried about the House-passed bill rolling back renewable energy tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. "There are many of us who recognize that what came out of the House was pretty aggressive in how it seeks to wind down or phase out many of the energy tax credit provisions," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "I happen to think that we've got tax policies that are working to help advance our energy initiatives around the country, as diverse and as varied as they are. Wouldn't we want to continue those investments? "This bill is the opposite of conservative, and we should not pass it," added Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in a June 4 social media post that raised concerns about the nation's debt limit. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is one of the outspoken Republicans taking issue with the House-passed bill's provisions that would cut nearly $800 billion during the next decade from Medicaid and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost 7.8 million people their health insurance. "I don't want to see rural hospitals close and I don't want to see any benefits cut in my state," Hawley said. Trump and his allies contend spending cuts of $1.6 trillion are the most ever approved in a House bill and that the tax cuts will spur economic growth to offset the costs. Trump got personal this week in calling Paul's ideas "crazy" in a social media post and said the people of Kentucky "can't stand him." More: Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters June 4 that few people are going to like everything in an 1,100-page bill. But the Louisiana Republican said the measure he helped craft in the House was carefully calibrated to gain wide support. "I hope everybody will evaluate that - in both parties, and everybody - and recognize, 'Wow, the benefits of this far outweigh anything that I don't like out it,'" Johnson said. Senate dropping local tax deductions would be 'radioactive': Rep. Lalota Any changes made by the Senate will force another vote in the House before the bill can become law - and that's where the math can get tricky. Republican senators are talking about tinkering with a key compromise that Trump and Johnson signed off on in the House that raised the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 for people earning less than $500,000 per year. That provision is important to GOP lawmakers from high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey who supported the House bill that passed through the 435-seat chamber by only a one-vote margin. More: Senate Republicans plan to amend SALT tax deduction in Trump's sweeping bill The Senate aims to cut back that provision. But Rep. Nick Lalota, R-New York, told reporters on June 4 that revisiting the tax issue "would be like digging up safely-buried radioactive waste." House members scouring through the bill they voted on weeks ago are also finding unfamiliar provisions in the version that they say they would have opposed. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said in a social media post June 3 that the Senate needs to strip out language she hadn't noticed earlier that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said he opposed a section that aims to hinder federal judges from enforcing their court orders. Trump sought the provision to prevent judges from blocking policies largely spelled out via his executive orders. Senate could drop contentious provisions House members risked supporting Even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the Senate could drop or fail to approve contentious parts that GOP House colleagues in competitive districts already went out on a limb to support. It's happened many times before - with sizable political consequences. The concept even has a name: Getting BTU'd. That refers to a 1993 House vote on a controversial energy tax during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency based on British thermal units. House Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 election - and control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years - in part because of supporting the BTU tax that the Senate never debated. John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, has said a book about such votes could be called "Profiles in Futility." Another example was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill which Obama supported as president that aimed to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, vehicles and other industrial sources. The Democrat-controlled House narrowly approved the measure 219-212 but the Senate never took it up. Critics said it would raise the cost of energy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank that opposed the measure, counted 28 House Democrats from coal states who lost their seats in the 2010 mid-term election after voting for the bill. Fast forward to 2025 and Republicans are the ones facing a similar dynamic. Musk, who contributed about $290 million of his personal fortune to help Republicans including Trump win last November, slammed House lawmakers who voted for the president's legislative package."Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," Musk wrote June 3 on social media. But House Republicans who voted for the legislation, including some who also demanded deeper spending cuts when it was in their hands, said they're not worried about the package falling apart and coming back to haunt them. They say that's because they did fight for more budget cuts. "This wasn't a hard vote. It was hard going through the process to get more, and you can always do better," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina. "But look at what Donald Trump's done, the great things that are contributing to cutting the deficit." Rep. David Schweikert, R-Arizona, who represents a competitive toss-up district, noted that he's introduced multiple bills to trim federal spending. "If Mr. Musk wants to be helpful, what he should do is start to understand that those of us in a 50-50 district who have shown up with actual policy solutions that offset every penny of this bill," he said. Leaving Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force Once on June 6 that he wasn't worried about Musk and that he remained confident he'd get "tremendous support" in the Senate to pass the bill. "I don't know of anybody who's going to vote against it," the president said, before adding: "Maybe Rand Paul." For his part, Johnson told reporters June 4 that he wasn't concerned about House Republicans losing seats in 2026. Predicting that the Senate would find the necessary votes on the president's tax bill, the speaker said he expects Americans will see the benefits of Trump's efforts before the next election. "Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not," Johnson said. "I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we are going to win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American majority and fulfilling our campaign promises." Contributing: Reuters
