CSPAN - Washington Journal Jefferson Morley

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 3, 2025 00:38-01:09 - CSPAN

30:53

Washington Journal Jefferson Morley

Participants

Main

jefferson morley

20:12

Appearances

pedro echevarria

cspan 02:44

Clips

dana bash

cnn 00:06

Callers

doug in kansas

callers 00:06

john in florida [2]

callers 00:14

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		On President Trump's efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, as well as the administration's scrutiny over federally funded universities, museums, and public media.
		We'll also talk with Connecticut Democratic Congressman John Larson, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, about President Trump's tariff policies and the future of Social Security.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Thursday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at C-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
		Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
		And we're just getting started.
		Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
		Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you were watching that hearing yesterday, taking a look at the newly released documents concerning the JFK assassination, you may have noticed Jefferson Morley as part of the panel.
		He is the author of the JFK Fact Substack newsletter.
		Joining us now in Washington Journal.
		Good morning.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Tell us a little bit about your history in looking into this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why are you so fascinated by it?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		I came to the JFK story actually through reporting on the CIA, not through the literature of JFK's assassination.
		When I first came to Washington in the 80s, when I first appeared on C-SPAN, I was covering the civil wars in Central America, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua.
		And to understand those conflicts and the U.S. role in it, you had to understand the role of the CIA, which is difficult, especially for a guy like me, a young reporter.
		I didn't have sources, didn't have a security clearance, never worked at the CIA.
		So I had to educate myself by just talking to a lot of people, reading a lot, reading a lot of original documentation, understanding how the CIA worked, and what was the history of the CIA in the Western Hemisphere.
		That inevitably leads back to the conflict between the United States and Cuba.
		And if you go into the deep history of that, that takes you into the conflicts of the early 1960s, the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, and the assassination of President Kennedy.
		So as I got interested in the CIA and interested in the Kennedy assassination later, that was always the lens in which I viewed it.
		And so I wrote three books about the CIA, about top men in the CIA.
		The first one was Our Man in Mexico, and that's the story of Winston Scott.
		He was the head of the CIA station in Mexico City from 1956 to 1969.
		Very powerful man in the Mexican scheme of things.
		And he was there in 1963 when Lee Harvey Oswald visits the embassies.
		And so Wynn Scott figures centrally in the JFK assassination story.
		And so what I wanted to do in that book was rather than give my theory of the assassination, because like Jeff, who cares about your theory?
		You know, nobody in the world should care about your theory.
		But what Wynn Scott thought about the assassination, a CIA insider who had a front row seat and whose role in the whole thing was pretty shadowy for the next 20, 30 years.
		That was an interesting story.
		And then my next book was The Ghost, which was a book about James Angleton.
		He too was involved in the JFK story.
		He controlled the Oswald file.
		Again, I was doing a biography of Angleton from his beginning of his career to the end of his career at CIA and looked at what did the Kennedy assassination look like him.
		And same with my third book, Scorpions Dance.
		Richard Helms and Richard Nixon was the story in that book, the director of the CIA and the president.
		That was really about Watergate, but the JFK story is kind of in the background between these two Machiavellian men.
		So my three books kind of give you a view of Kennedy's assassination in the eyes of the CIA.
		And that's how I came to it.
		That's how I came to the story.
		And that's how I understand it as a national security event of deep interest to senior CIA officials.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You wrote about the recent release of information that if you look at it and search for fact patterns, you find things related to the CIA, things you've talked about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What did you mean by that?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, it's a familiar experience for me when the government puts out tens of thousands of pages of documents and I get a call like 30 minutes later saying, Jeff, is there a smoking gun?
		And I'm like, well, I'm reading my third of 2,300 documents, so I'm not quite ready to pronounce judgment.
		But people want that.
		They want to know what's new, what's new.
		We've got to step back a little bit.
		If you want to understand what's coming and what we just learned last month, which is very important, let me say that.
		People who say there's nothing in these files, it's simply not true.
		They don't know where to look, is what I would say to people like that.
		And we can talk about some of the specific things that emerge.
		But it's more important to step back and look at what have we learned in the last five years, right?
		Because JFK information has been coming into the record slowly.
		And so it's not just what happened last week.
		It's all the accumulation of evidence over the last five or ten years.
		What does that tell us?
		What it tells us is the official story that one guy shot the president for no reason and another came along and shot that guy because he felt like it.
		Okay?
		We now know that's not what happened.
		I mean, the evidence does not support that.
		It doesn't support the notion that one man fired at the limousine three shots from behind.
		The doctors didn't think that.
		The people in the limousine didn't think that.
		The police officers on the scene didn't think that.
		The photographic evidence doesn't show that.
		So the official story is not true.
		So what did happen, that's a much more complicated thing.
		And that's what I was trying to get at in the hearing is, yes, we are learning slowly more about, particularly about CIA operations around Oswald before and after the assassination.
		That is the core of the issue here.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Of that core, what do you think is more important?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's most important to focus on the CIA's role according to the documents that we're talking about?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		So the story that Oswald, the man who supposedly killed the president, was a lone nut, okay, that's completely false.
		Lee Harvey Oswald was very well known to a small group of operations officers at the top of the CIA a couple of weeks before Kennedy was killed.
		And they knew everything about him.
		And what I talked about in my testimony was in what we learned last month was we now have three senior CIA officials who have lied under oath about what they knew about the accused assassin.
		And what I'm saying is, as somebody who's written a lot about the CIA, that sure looks like these guys are running an operation involving this character named Oswald, who they have been very interested in for four years.
		And so before we only knew about two senior CIA officials who lied in that way.
		Now we have three.
		So I'm saying that's a pattern of misconduct.
		That's a pattern of malfeasance.
		It's not a theory.
		Three officials lying under oath.
		That's a serious deal in a presidential assassination.
		So that's what I'm trying to get at.
		Washington today, a lot of theater, a lot of politicization, people dragging Trump into it.
		It's really unfortunate because this is a very serious topic.
		It's not a partisan political issue.
		And that's not to say that the stuff that's going on in government today isn't important.
		It's very important.
		But this should be insulated from that.
		This is history.
		I find wide agreement, wide political agreement.
		The readers of my JFK facts on Substack, very diverse audience.
		MAGA Red, Christian Nationalists, Libertarians, Conservatives, Leftists.
		I mean, we have it all.
		We have a wide spectrum of readers.
		I think that's very unusual in Libyan journalism.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let me invite callers to call in 202737-0002 for Republicans, Democrats, 202737-0001.
		Independents 202-6280-205.
		If you want to ask our guests questions, you hinted at it.
		What's your theory then?
		JFK.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		You know, I don't have a theory.
		I never even, until yesterday, I never even assigned responsibility for the crime individually or institutionally.
		I still don't assign responsibility institutionally.
		I think what we've learned, especially with this false testimony of James Engleton, in combination with the false testimony of these other people, which has only been learned in recent years, you know, that's a pattern of misconduct.
		That points to legal culpability.
		When people lie that much about the same thing.
		So what I'm saying is because these CIA officers knew so much about the accused assassin and failed to, let's say Oswald did it and failed to stop him, that's criminal negligence.
		Or the other possibility, given all the secrecy around, is that they're running an operation involving him, in which case they're implicated in the president murder by a covert action.
		So to me, was the CIA criminally negligent or were they actually complicit in JFK's murder?
		That's the question that is posed by the record we have today.
		But the story that one guy alone shot the president for no reason, it just, the evidence doesn't support that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And would you say Oswald was a mastermind of all this?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		No.
		No.
		Oswald was what he said he was.
		He said, I didn't kill the president.
		I'm a patsy.
		Meaning, I'm the fall guy.
		I'm taking the blame for a crime committed by other people.
		And so, yeah, the evidence that has emerged in the last 20 years lends a lot of credence to the notion Oswald was what he said he was.
		He was a patsy for other people who committed the crime.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from John in Pennsylvania.
		Democrats line for our guest, Jefferson Morley.
		John in Pennsylvania, thanks for calling.
		Go ahead, you're up.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning, gentlemen.
unidentified		First of all, when I was a student in Philadelphia, I listened to a radio show featuring Sylvia Mager, who was one of the investigators of the JFK assassination.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		And she quit.
unidentified		She quit because she was told not to deviate from the lone assassin theory.
		And so she said that's no way to do an investigation.
		The other thing is the Dallas Morning News, which I have a copy of, the gun that was found in the book depository was identified by experts, by the way, as a German Mauser.
		And that didn't fit the gun that Oswald had, so they changed the story to an Italian Karkenko.
		And so that's another thing I wanted to bring up.
		So that's two things that we can consider.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We'll let our guests respond to that.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Sylvia Marr was one of the best assassination researchers, and her book is called Accessories After the Fact, was really the first book that was skeptical of the Warren Commission that I found really convincing.
		A lot of the conspiracy literature I never found very convincing, but Sylvia Maher's book was very good.
		So to your first point, I didn't know that she had been warned off the case, but that doesn't surprise me.
		It was a kind of a radical position to take, even though her approach was very fact-based and all that.
		And the story you tell about the Mauser and the Manlinkar Carcano, that's a true story.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Republican line from California, this is Lee.
		Good morning.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		I wonder why it was never brought up from the grassy hill.
		There were two hobos seen walking right away down by the railroad tracks.
		They were dressed like hobos, but they had $100 shoes on.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Yeah, you know, those hobos, we found the arrest records from the Dallas Police Department, and those hobos were, in fact, hobos.
		They were homeless men.
		So that story that the hobos were somehow involved in Kennedy's assassination, it's just it has not been borne out by the evidence.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The chair, Anna Paulina Luna, called this, referred to JFK's assassination still as a cold case.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, we have a homicide for which no one was ever brought to justice.
		So in that sense, it's a cold case, right?
		We never had a judicial verdict about Lee Harvey Oswald.
		He was never convicted in a court of law.
		And in fact, it's an important point to point out.
		He should enjoy the presumption of innocence, right?
		I mean, and he said he was innocent.
		So, yes, the government has arrayed this big case at him, but the government has also lied repeatedly.
		And that's what I talked about in the hearing yesterday.
		I mean, if three senior CIA officials are lying about your case, doesn't that change, doesn't that call into question the judgment that has been passed on you?
		I mean, I said in the hearing, let's say three police officers lie about their knowledge of a defendant in a homicide case.
		Wouldn't we say that homicide, that defendant should get a new trial?
		You know, isn't that government misconduct?
		Doesn't that require a new trial and a presumption of innocence?
		That's what I say about Oswald.
		It's like there's so much government misconduct that any presumption that Oswald is guilty needs to be removed.
		It's not there based on the facts.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Frank is in New York, and Frank is on our line for independence for Jefferson Morley.
		Good morning.
		You're next.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Mr. Morley, I've long vacillated one way or another about this.
		I could just have two points.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		And one question to ask you, sir, though.
doug in kansas ▲ ● ▼		Is it true that about six months prior to this, Oswald purportedly shot at a general?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		That's my question.
		And, you know, I mean, did they make it seem that way?
		And the other one is everything appears that if the photos are true of the president and the doctor's testimony, that he was shot from the front.
		Yeah.
john in florida [2] ▲ ● ▼		I saw an Englishman do a documentary where they showed a man in a manhole, which, you know, seems to be like a really spot that I would be in if I was doing the shooting and not the grafty knoll.
unidentified		I just want your comments on that, sir.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Yeah, in reverse order.
		The idea that Kennedy was shot from the manhole, people talk about it all the time.
		It's very unfortunate because it sounds ridiculous.
		And then people say, oh, look at the crazy stuff conspiracy theorists say.
		There's no basis for that.
		There's no basis for that, in fact.
		Oswald, you know, someone took a shot at General Edwin Walker.
		He was a right-wing general who had been fired by Kennedy for his white supremacist and John Birch Society views.
		He'd been proselytizing troops with his politics.
		So Kennedy fired him.
		And Walker was very ambitious.
		He wanted to run for president.
		He was kind of like a George Wallace type.
		He was appealing to the same constituency as George Wallace.
		And somebody took a shot at him in April 1963.
		And Oswald's connected with that incident.
		So, you know, did Oswald fire the shots?
		What happened that night?
		That's the subject of a lot of dispute.
		I'm inclined to say Oswald might have, you know, taken that shot, but that's not proof that he shot the president.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		There's a viewer off of X saying with the March 2025 files showing Engleton's oversight of Oswald and the CIA's Mexico City surveillance in your view.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do these files paired with the Zapruder film's now known questionable chain of custody most strongly point to agency negligence?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think that's the question is, you know, Engleton has this big file on Oswald sitting on his desk on November 15th when the president's getting to leave.
		You know, and the first line of the FBI report that he receives on November 14th says Oswald was arrested.
		So they know that he's like, you know, there's something problematic about him, and they do nothing.
		So was that negligence?
		Were they letting Oswald go there and participate in the assassination?
		Or were they manipulating him to some end?
		You know, I hear the negligence argument, but when I see three senior officials lying under oath, that's not negligence.
		That's not a sign of negligence.
		That's a sign of something else.
		That's why I lean more towards complicity and culpability.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Washington Post had an editorial after the release, and they start off by saying none of the more than 77,000 pages released last week undermine the consensus view that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he assassinated Kennedy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And some of the covert actions that were revealed were not, let's say, enlightening, talking about the work of the CIA and so forth.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		I mean, the editorial is comic, right?
		They haven't read 77,000 pages of material.
		They're posing.
		They're pretending.
		They're assuming they know the truth.
		You know, and then when you go look at it, do the editors of the Washington Post say three senior CIA officials lying under oath about a presidential assassin?
		Are they saying that's nothing?
		That's not important?
		I mean, they're entitled to that judgment at the cost of their own credibility.
		I mean, most people would say, that's significant.
		That's a significant part of the JFK story.
		They wouldn't say, that's nothing.
		So, you know, what gives?
		What gives?
		Why pretend that you have read 77,000 pages of material when you obviously haven't, and you've made no effort to understand them?
		You know, that's what we're up against, is it's not a fact-based mindset, right?
		I come to this story with a fact-based mindset.
		I was always very wary about pronouncing judgment on a big question.
		Who's responsible for the president's death?
		I reported on the story for 30 years.
		I never passed judgment, individually or institutionally.
		I've started changing that based on what I've seen in these records.
		I can say with confidence, there's a pattern of misconduct there.
		There's a pattern of malfeasance there that needs to be explained.
		And that's where we're at right now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line from New York.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Bob in Westchester.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		Hi.
		I'd be interested in Mr. Morley's remarks.
		I had seen a lot of interviews with Chapar Conte and his attorney and so forth, where organized crime claimed responsibility for the assassination.
		Percy Killgall actually interviewed Jack Ruby and then she mysteriously died before she released anything.
		Can you have any feelings on that?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		We know the organized crime role in the assassination.
		The organized crime role was to eliminate the chief witness, Lee Harvey Oswald.
		And Jack Ruby, responsive to organized crime directives, did exactly that.
		You know, I was on a show, I was on Piers Morgan with a guy named Michael Franzine, who had been a capo.
		He'd been in organized crime for many years, turned state witness, and now he's kind of an expert commentator on organized crime.
		And he was on the show and he was asked, you know, what do you think happened?
		And he said, well, I can only tell you one thing for sure.
		With all the mob bosses, and he, you know, rattles them off.
		You know, he spent a lot of time with these guys.
		He said it was common knowledge among them that organized crime had assisted by eliminating Lee Harvey Oswald.
		So that part of the JFK story is really confirmed.
		You know, Jack Ruby acted at the behest of organized crime.
		Again, we don't know exactly how.
		Nobody wrote a note and said, Jack, please go eliminate that guy.
		You know, we're not going to find evidence of that because these are criminals, right?
		They don't write stuff down.
		But we do know that much about the organized crime aspect.
		You talk about traffic content and those guys talking.
		You know, we've listened to those tapes as researchers.
		And another thing criminals do is they brag and they boast and they, you know, they BS.
		And so the idea that mob bosses were saying, oh, we took care of Kennedy, I don't think they ever said that.
		And certainly, mob bosses had no ability to influence Lee Harvey Oswald.
		I have not much ability.
		And certainly, you know, organized crime is not keeping JFK records secret today, right?
		So I don't see, or I think we understand the role of organized crime in the events of 1963.
		I don't think that's too much in dispute.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		For the information that was released recently, is that it, or is there more?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		There's a couple more things.
		After the president's order came, the FBI went and searched their records and they found a bunch more JFK-related things.
		And those are now, they sent those to the National Archives, and those are going to be released.
		And so at JFK Facts, we've started going through those, and I'm going to tease this a little bit.
		We have some new findings from the new FBI files.
		We need to do some more research.
		We're not like the editors of the Washington Post who can read 77,000 pages in a couple of hours and pronounce confidently on what's in the documents that they haven't read.
		Unlike the editors of the Washington Post, we like to read the documents before we pass judgment on them.
		So we're working on the FBI files now, and I think we have a really good, interesting story about them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So those things relate to what?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Generally, if you want to say.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		FBI and CIA operations against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of.
		At that time, CIA and FBI targeted leftists and liberal groups that opposed U.S. policy, and they targeted them for disruption and destruction.
		And I think we've got a little piece of that story about what was going on when the CIA and FBI targeted the Fair Play for Cuba committee as this unknown character, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a member of that group.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Bob.
		He's in California, Republican line.
		Jefferson Morley joins us.
		He is the author of the JFK Facts Substack newsletter.
		Bob, hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		How much investigation have you actually done into looking into Jack Ruby's background?
		There's two things I really want to talk about.
		One is I've seen literature and also photographs that associate him with Prescott Bush and Richard Nixon as an investigator for the House Un-American Activities Committee back in 1948.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'm familiar with that story.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		And there's a very clear picture of the three of them together.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		I'm not aware of that picture, but if you could send it to me, I'd be glad to publish it.
unidentified		Yeah, I'd like to find out how to, and I've got other information that is a novel information that nobody I do have those pictures.
unidentified		But and then for quite some time, Ruby was working directly for the Bush family.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		In fact, I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect, but okay.
unidentified		I'll send some of that to you.
		But another thing that has to do with motive is a speech that Kennedy made about a month before the assassination.
		Almost a month before the assassination.
		He made a speech at, I'm trying to remember the name of it, but it was a center that was dedicated to in Pennsylvania that was dedicating itself to creating a lot of private land out west.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Call our guy.
		I to leave it there and only because you put a lot out for the guests to consider.
		Jack Ruby, let's just focus on that.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you know.
		Jack Ruby was an organized crime figure.
		I interviewed a woman who was friends with Jack Ruby and worked in his nightclub.
		And I asked her, you know, why did Jack, why did your friend Jack kill Oswald?
		And she said, I don't think he had a choice.
		And I said, really, what do you mean?
		She said, well, you know, everybody works for somebody.
		And Jack worked for people, you know.
		And I said, who?
		She said, I don't know.
		I was just a 20-year-old kid at the time.
		But I don't think Jack had a choice about killing him.
		And I said, well, did he ever say anything about President Kennedy?
		Because the story was put out at the time.
		He was trying to save the widow Jackie from the pain of a criminal trial.
		Jack Ruby was a pimp.
		He was never married.
		He was a brawler.
		He beat up the crap out of people.
		The idea that he was concerned about Jackie Kennedy's sensibility always struck me as quite improbable.
		And so I asked this woman who knew Ruby well, what did your friend Jack think about President Kennedy?
		And she said, I never heard him say word one about President Kennedy, but I'll tell you one thing.
		He hated Bobby Kennedy with a purple passion.
		So that's the guy, you know, like, I think that tells you, you know, that was the world, that's who Ruby was.
		Now, can I tell you who told Ruby to go kill Oswald?
		No, organized crime doesn't work that way.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Don in Michigan, Don in Michigan Democrats line.
		You're next up for Jefferson Morley.
		Hi there.
unidentified		Good morning, C-Shang.
		Good morning to American people and to your guests.
		I just want to make a statement and a comment.
		Okay.
		I think this whole information assassination is just a shiny object to get us all off of the Trump administration's disastrous policy.
		But now with that said, I think the CIA and the FBI had something to do with the assassination.
		And did the military, was the military told to stand down when they went to D.C. to, I've seen that on one of the movies that was portrayed on that.
		Was that a true statement or was that just fiction?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		No.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Don.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Don.
		No, it's true.
		We've looked at, JFK researchers have looked at film footage of all the trips that President Kennedy took in the fall of 1963 before he went to Dallas.
		He went to about, had about 10 trips around the country.
		The security on every one of those trips was much tighter than it was in Dallas, much tighter.
		So that story that you're true, that somehow security was standing down.
		I mean, we can tell from the film footage of the motorcades that the security procedures in effect were definitely minimal in Dallas compared to all the other places Kennedy went that year.
		And, you know, in terms of like CIA, FBI, military involvement, I say, you know, since the official story is not true, you know, that one guy killed the president for no reason, you know, what is more likely explanation?
		The more likely explanation is what Jackie and Robert Kennedy came to believe, that President Kennedy was killed by enemies in his own government.
		And that could encompass CIA or, you know, military intelligence.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's what I think.
		Let's try to get in.
		Rosemary in Illinois, Independent Line.
		You're next up.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning, gentlemen.
		Good morning, Mr. Morley and Padre and the C-SPAN station.
		I'm so grateful that you guys are putting this on this morning.
		Most importantly, grateful to Mr. Trump for having the initiative to get these crowds out in the open to tell the truth.
		Now, what I found out during the meeting was there were three attempts on our president, one in Chicago, one in Tampa, and he finally got killed in Texas, okay?
		And I say with all my heart and soul not to be a smart Alex, the mob did kill Kennedy.
		That's all I'm going to say.
		I'm not going to go into specifics.
		When we finally find out that that happened, it'll be the time when nobody could care less about this situation.
dana bash ▲ ● ▼		But go, C-SPAN, and thank you for this SpaceX that you let us see that the people land.
unidentified		No other station did it but you.
unidentified		Go, C-SPAN.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		I share your enthusiasm for C-SPAN.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		I disagree with you on the organized crime angle, but let's leave it at that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oliver Stone yesterday called on Congress to reopen the case.
unidentified		Do you think that'll ever happen?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't think that that's going to happen.
		I mean, what we saw in the hearing yesterday, the divisive, the polarization, the inability to kind of reach a join a common conversation, that's going to make reopening the investigation very difficult.
		And I think a better approach is to really complete what Trump called for and what the law calls for.
		You know, Congress passed a law in 92, 1992, calling for full disclosure of all JFK records in 25 years.
		Okay, now we're 33 years later, and we still don't have all the records.
		So what we need to do is get all the records.
		And people say, oh, well, we have them all.
		There's nothing there.
		No, the people are paying attention.
		We know what the CIA is still withholding.
		And there's a lot of evidence out there.
		And there's a lot of people who know what's, you know, who have relevant information.
		I think it would be better to have educational hearings rather than an open investigation.
		And, you know, let people decide for themselves.
		You know, nobody's going to be lectured to on the Kennedy assassination.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How can people find your substack?
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Jfkfacts.substack.com, a newsletter that covers latest developments in the JFK assassination story.
		We don't do conspiracy theories.
		And we're trying to get to the truth.
		And I feel like we're making some progress.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jefferson Morley, thanks for giving us your time.
jefferson morley ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Pedro.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum, inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
		Coming up Thursday morning, we'll talk about President Trump's tariffs and how it could impact consumers with Axio senior economics reporter Courtney Brown and then Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez on President Trump's efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, as well as the administration's scrutiny over federally funded universities, museums, and public media.
		We'll also talk with Connecticut Democratic Congressman John Larson, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, about President Trump's tariff policies and the future of Social Security.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

▲