in europe, these silas claiming they were propaganda tools of the kremlin. and january of this year, the french treasury decided to freeze our t frances assets this weeks final sanction imposed by the french authorities. once again provoked the anger of a number of journalists and trade unions. a french professor at the moscow state university believes that europe, traditional systems are being used as a political tool. were you more likely to she's younger to we see from the decision which was made by the way, by the french court that today within this framework, within the framework of the ukrainian conflict, the judicial system is being used as a political tool. it is impossible not to recall that r t has been under sanctions for several months even years because it did not distribute the so called correct information. the number of restrictions on journalists and the media is growing. you, they don't follow the needle line. the globalist line, we note the restriction of freedom of speech in europe and the closure party, the forced liquidation of our

a t takes this process to new level one. we're also talking about the elimination of freedom of speech is without freedom of speech. it's difficult to have freedom of thought because it will become increasingly difficult for people to access different points of view. which means that we're coming to political system that controls more and more people's thoughts. so we're slowly entering a system built in the model of a dictatorship or in any case and authoritarian system. and this is very worrying because the slope in this direction ends as a rule very badly. one can go far in this direction, but no authoritarian system of the dictatorial type can live forever. i'm very worried. what will happen in france? where will the system go? to what extent will people be forbidden to think? to what extent will people be forbidden to reflect? this is an encroachment on the human being itself in all its diversity in all its complexity in all its freedom, which is an integral part of the human personality. that's all for now. be sure to

check out our t v dot com for all the latest breaking news and updates. we'll see you next time. ah ah, at the end of the 18th century, great britain began to conquer and colonize australia. from the very beginning of the british penetration to the continent, natives were subjected to severe violence and deliberate extra patient. according to modern historians. in the 1st 140 years, there were at least $270.00 massacres of local be both. any resistance to the british was answered with doubled cruelty. hundreds of natives were killed for the

murder of one settler. indigenous australians were not considered complete people. no wild beast of the forest was ever hunted down with such unsparing perseverance as they are. men, women and children are shot whenever they can be met with squatter. henry myrick wrote in a letter to his family in england, in 1846. australia's past is rightly described as blood soaked and races. if at the beginning of colonization, there were one and a half 1000000 indigenous people living on the continent. then by the beginning of the 20th century, their number had decreased till 100000 people despite the indisputable historical facts. the problem of full recognition of the crimes of white australians against the aborigines has not been resolved so far. ah, ah. 2 perhaps the greatest mystery of the

20th century was who killed us. president john f kennedy was at lee harvey. oswald acting alone, was at the cia or elements of the cia was at the mafia. the russians, the cubans, perhaps even vice president. lyndon johnson, we don't have the definitive answer, but our guest today is one of the world's leading experts on this subject. and he's uncovered some new information. i'm john carry aku, and you're watching the whistleblowers. ah, there are enough questions about the john f. kennedy assassination, to fill a library. countless books already have been written on the subject, and many of them have only served to make the issue murkier. rather than to clear up some of the myriad questions surrounding the case. every 5 or 10 years, congress demands that, that ca, declassify, and release a tranche of documents related to the assassination. and with great hope among the

public that more light would be shed on one of the most infamous crimes. in american history, we are invariably disappointed. many of us hang on films and documentaries, by the likes of oliver stone, to explain the many twists and turns in what has become a never ending investigation. but now historian jefferson morley, one of the leading experts in the world on the kennedy assassination, has found some new information in recently released records. he's learned that the cia has documents that show that accused assassin, lee harvey oswald, was on the cia payroll and involved in a c, i operation 3 months before the kennedy assassination. now, before we get too far in front of ourselves, we have to explain what we mean here. it turns out that the hands off cubic committee that oswald was a part of, in the months before the kennedy assassination was actually a cia front organization. there's no indication that oswald knew he was a member of a cia front group, or that he was involved in

a c i operation. but it certainly makes many of us wonder what other information the cia still has about the kennedy assassination. that it doesn't want to make public, were joined by jefferson morley. he's a journalist, author, and the editor of the j. f. k. facts blog. his latest book is called scorpions dance, the president, the spy master and watergate. jeff, welcome to the show. were very happy to have you. thanks for having me, john. jeff, you made international news late last year with reports that the cia is in possession of here to for unseen documents about the kennedy assassination. tell us what those documents say, what they mean and how you became aware of their existence. so this is a complicated story and i want to, i want to approach it very carefully. you set it at the outset, john. i thought was on the ca, payroll, i would not go that far. ok. he was watched very carefully by the cia and he

appears to have been under ca, influence. was he receiving money from the c i? i don't have any. any evidence of that with the story that i, that i told last year, and that we're hoping to clarify this year is about the interest of certain ca, officers in oswald before the assassination. why is this an important story? well, this is something that the ca deceived the warren commission in the public about from the start. the original story was we didn't know anything about this guy. he just kind of came out of nowhere with the declassification of a lot of records in the 1900 ninety's. we now know that that story was false. that in fact top ca, officers monitored oswald every step of its life from 1959 to 963. they essentially watched him all the way go into dealey plaza. so that has never been explained by the ca. how do we explain it?

well, the records that i came across our records that involve the officers involved with the fair play for cuba committee, which you referenced before. right. this was a nominally pro castro group. it wasn't, it wasn't just to see a front group, a fair play for cuba committee was a real popular leftist group opposed to kennedy's policy in cuba. the point is the c, i a had targeted this group, the fair play for cuba committee for harassment disruption and destruction for co intel pro treatment. no. and that was going on in the fall of 1963. so the, the records that i've identified, there's $44.00 records of a cia officer stationed in miami, in 1900. 63 who's agents were in contact with oswald. all of that is well documented. and this is what the agency doesn't want to surrender. there's 44 of

these documents, they've been denied in full, right? so we don't even have like, you know, what? i'm on redacted portions. these documents are completely with l. that's an indication of just how sensitive they are. documents that are 60 years old, right? and they all come down to the same question. they all bear on the same question, the operational interest of certain ca, officers in oswald while kennedy is still alive, that just when you describe it that way, you understand how embarrassing this material is for the ca and why they're refusing to release it. now we have a law, the laws very clear. this material has to be produced under us law, but the ca, because they have a lot of influence over any president have been able to stonewall and keep this material out of public view. so that's what's still going on right now. we did get

some interesting information last month when president biden ordered a new release of j. f k files to be released, but the ca withheld a lot of 4400 documents still contain redaction. so, you know where they're trying to kick the can down the road and say, pay no attention. there's nothing here and hope that people forget about it, but people haven't forgot about it. we know where the story is. it's in these 44 files that ca has their at the cia premium information act office. these are records that are known to exist and have to be produced under the law. the question is, can our political system mustered the will to challenge a powerful agency like the ca, you know, and so far, even, you know, president trump didn't do it, president biden right into it. there's not enough political will to tell the ca, hey, you guys have to obey the law now. so until that happens,

we're not going to get this story. in your work, jeff, you are very careful to avoid getting lost in the weeds of the minutia. approaching the fascination of president kennedy with more of a macro lens. many times you mentioned that while much is unknown, a good launching point for the investigation is that kennedy was killed by his enemies, and those enemies were powerful enough. they were influential enough or resourceful enough to cover their tracks, while many may find it entertaining or captivating to get knee deep in theories regarding secret service agents, etc. what's the utility of approaching this from, from this wider framing? well, you know, the whole, i always thought that the whole approach that people, kirk of the kennedy assassination of develop a theory and then go find some facts. yes. it into your theory. yes. you know that i as a journalist, that's not the way we work. i always work like, what's new, what, what if, what if we learned recently that we didn't know before?

and then what is that changing? fact pattern tell you. and i think if you look at it that way, you don't get lost in the we've and you see this larger pattern and institutional behavior. and that's what has enabled me to say, hey, you know, what's the ca trying hardest, that's where we want to go. right, because whatever they're trying hardest to hide, that's what's most news words, right? that's going to be where the most sensitive story is. so that's what we found, that is where the records are. that will explain the rest of the story. now we just need it. the political will to get somebody in congress, the courts, or the white house to say in cia, you have to cough this stuff up. i had a conversation a couple of weeks ago with robert f. kennedy junior, and he told me the most interesting story. it's a story that i hadn't heard before on the day that his uncle was killed november 22nd 963. his mother f o kennedy pulled him out of school early and brought him

home to their home in mclean virginia. now the head of the cia at the time was a family friend who would come over to the house literally every single day when the weather was nice and swim in the pool. when bob arrived at home and he was just 9 years old at the time, he said he got out of the car and he heard his father asked the c i a director or say to the c, i director. tell me that your people didn't do this and the director responded. i don't know who did this now. you can read a lot into that. but to me, the implication is that the cia or elements of the cia were working independently of any oversight. so where you, where you conclude that the president had powerful resourceful enemies. i think that's a perfect fit. that's what it sounds like to me. yeah, and you know,

john mccomb was a good friend of robert kennedy's. they were both devout catholics. mccullin's wife had died of cancer and, and bobby and f kennedy were very good to him in that time, a very difficult time for him. and so he did become close friends with them. and he did go to hickory hill to robert kennedy's house on the afternoon of november 22nd . that was the 1st person, bobby kennedy wanted to see. and arthur schlesinger tells the story, if he help bobby kennedy said to mccomb, your people did this or tell me that your people didn't do this now. in flesh singers account mccomb convinced bobby kennedy that the ca wasn't involved. law, you know, i, that's the way it's less injured tells the story in his biography of r, f k. but clearly that you should know, you know, later that week the president was killed on a friday the following friday,

november 29th. i'll be in and jackie kennedy met with me at william walton who is a friend of jack and he was a painter. and he was going to moscow for a cultural exchange program previously planned. and they told him, we want you to take a message to the kremlin, to the people there and the messages desk. some people say oswald was a communist or trying to connect him to the communist world. we don't attach any importance to that. we think that the president was killed by age or domestic conspiracy. landel bobby kennedy is going to try and get back and become president, is kind of a reassuring message. we're not going to blame you. and we want to, we want to return to j. f. case policies, you know, that's what jackie bob kennedy thought a week after the assassination stay thought. president kennedy had been killed by his domestic enemies and there's a lot of evidence to support that. so that's what we're still struggling to find out is you know how, what happened, how did that, how did that happen? but clearly, bobby kennedy thought that and thought that for the rest of his life,

yes, dramatic. what should his story and, and the american people take from this, this new information, lee harvey oswald, was a person of interest to the cia. as you said, from 1959 throughout 1963. what does that mean in the greater scope of things? does it point a stronger finger? do you think at the cia and are we talking about official ca, or elements of the ca? we're talking about senior officials in the counterintelligence staff and the directorate of operations. people who reported directly to deputy director, dick county where the counterintelligence st. james angleton and the important one of the important things is people say, oh yes, of course they were, you know, keeping track of him because he had been a defector. he had lived in the soviet union, but the people who were paying attention to this is important, understand. they weren't just paying attention to him for the sake of keeping track of somebody. when they kept track of somebody that closely,

they were used for operational purposes. oh sure, and that's the part of the story that's still has a has a shroud of official secrecy around it. right? this operational interest. sure. we want to know what he was doing, but these people want to use him for some specific task and, and or some specific goal that they want to achieve. and that's what the records that i'm, i'm talking about. we know from the c, i is own description of them, but they involve intelligence methods. they involve questions of cover. that's why the see a says they can't be made public. but the story that they, that they conceal is the story of this interest in the as well. so what was that interest? you know, that's why we need to see the records because that's right. you know, it, it could be that it could be that they were paying close attention to them and they didn't realize he was going to shoot the president. they could be that they were paying close attention to him and they were manipulating him to do something that

they wanted done. you know, we don't know, but we do know that there was this interest. and we do know that the ca still heidi jeff, stay with us please. we are going to take a short break. we're speaking with author historian and journalist jefferson morley about the assassination of president john kennedy will be back with more questions for him after this short free stay to use . 2 me what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on offense. very dramatic development. only personally

and going to resist are those. see how that strategy will be successful? very critical time time to sit down and talk. 2 2 2 ah. 2 it seems that every few years, the u. s. president orders the national archives to release documents related to the assassination of president john f. kennedy. indeed, congress has mandated that all documents related to the murder be released, but that hasn't happened. the documents still come out in dribs and drabs and much of the information, even when released is redacted. we're talking about the kennedy assassination and the documents with our guest, historian, author, and journalist jefferson morley. welcome back. jeff. thanks heard me, john. jeff, i'm perplexed as to why presidents of both parties have steadfastly refused to declassify additional j. f. k documents. despite the fact that congress has

mandated declassification and release unanimously. so many years of passed, what is the c i have to hide? are they trying to protect information related to operations in places like mexico, city, havana, moscow? are they trying to protect sources? maybe even the dead ones? why the reluctance to, to just come clean unless there's some involvement? well, there's a, you know, as a, as a clandestine service, they are just inherently reflexively resistant to true, complying with full disclosure laws. and so i think one part of this is they don't want to create any precedent where outsiders can come in and say, you have to declassify this and you have to be classified that what they say about what their withholding is. this is information that will harm national security for the lease, you know, but then when we, when we see what had been withheld and when new information is released, like in december like last december, you know,

the information for the most part is not earth shattering. no, it's not the name of live informants, you know, it's pretty mundane stuff. so what's going on is they're trying to make sure that they have the last the word. and the question you raise is a good one way, you know, if you don't have anything to hide, why would you keep hiding thing? and their position now is, well, we just need to keep hiding this stuff. but trust us, there's nothing that matters in that, right? yeah, right. like rom, reagan said yeah, trust. but verify. ok. we want verification that there's nothing in there and they won't provide it. so that suspicious behavior, right? i mean sure. why wouldn't you do if you didn't have something to hide? why wouldn't you come clean? so i believe that they are hiding significant information. that's embarrassing now . well, at 60 years ago, why not? you know, well, j. f k occupies a special place in american culture, american imagination, american politics. and so, you know,

if something was very embarrassing about j. f k, that could be really, really harmful to the ca today. and like, you know, somebody would get called up to congress and have to explain things and their budget might be cut or, you know, people would demand answers about this or that. so, you know, you say, oh, it's ancient history, but when it's j, f. k, it, you know, it's radioactive, it's a lot, 5 matter still in politics today and could have a big impact on the bureaucracy as it exists today. you have studied the kennedy assassination, perhaps more than anybody else. what is this new information lead you to believe about the possible involvement of other players in the killing killing? and i'm thinking mostly about the mob or cuban exiles who have long faced accusations. is there any new information that has you wing changes in your analysis? well, i think that, you know, we don't have a good explanation of what happened on november 22nd. we see a lot of ca,

stonewalling, but i think, you know, what's in these records in terms of what they would show about, you know, who specifically, you know, was acting, you know, suspicious, or, you know, malevolent way towards the president. you know, we're not going to be able to answer those questions until we see all the dogs. and the way i see it is there's a couple of possibilities of senior cia officials who, who meet the criteria knew about as well before the assassination, were involved in other assassination operations. or who implicated themselves in the crime. and when we look at that group of people, you know, we can narrow this down and say, you know, most likely we're talking about, you know, pop ca, officials, bill harvey or jim angleton. we might be talking about top people at the joint chiefs of staff. you know, given the secrecy, we just don't, we can't be sure,

but for me that's where it's boiling, it's narrowing down to senior ca, officials cuban exiles in pay of the cia and, and pentagon officials involved in fall slag operations against cuba. that's where the focus that i see is now jeff, where does the kennedy assassination investigation go from here? should we expect to see more documents released eventually in the near term in the long term? do you expect them to contribute substantially, to the existing body of evidence? and why do you think you mentioned just a moment ago? why do you think that americans are still so captivated by the kennedy assassination? 60 years after it took place, let me start with the last one i, you know, the question of classified information and when can it be made public and what's harmful to national security?

i mean, that's in our headlines every day now. right, right, president biden took these documents, trunk, took those documents, it's all about what's classified. how do we control it? how does the government control it's information? so the questions raised by kennedy assassination or with us today. and that's why, you know, that's why it matters today. i think that you know, that the price that we paid in 1963 when we didn't have a real investigation. we had a very super and superficial investigator in the warren commission. a commission that was operating in the dark on a lot of key questions and never knew how to ask the right questions. because the cia had kept them in the dark. think about it in a common sense. point of view, of course, at all should be made public. it also made public a long time ago. you know, and that's the thing that we need to impress upon the leadership of the country. but it's very difficult because, you know, c, i is a big organization. sure. they resisted this thing. time and again, you know,

they still trump, they step by step the next present. yes. because you know, that's the way they do business. it is, i've always said that the ca normally loves it when a new president is elected. and he doesn't have intelligence experience because that new president begins his classified briefings the day after the election. and so a team from the da's presidential daily brief staff goes to, to the president elect. and they lay out all this classified information and they say, mr. president, elect, wait until you hear the cool things that we're doing all around the world. and they give him these blue border, or black board reports that are classified 456 levels above top secret. and they've recruited him. they've made him one of the guys. they love that, right? know, and every power, every president has been intoxicated in talk the word by the power that the ca

offers writes the secret solution, the painless solution. you know, there's no political downside because nobody will know about it. you know, presidents who want to get things done, which is pretty much all president, that's a powerful drug for them and you know, and it might work once or twice. but historically, you know, if backfires badly, many times, you know, but that's not the experience. the presence have they go in and they want that power, you know, they want it, they want that instrument of power, that the ca represents. and you know, that's, that's part of the problem that we've had is because we haven't had accountability because presidents at the end of the day say i want them to be able to do whatever they want, you know. yeah. and so they keep getting away with it. yeah, that's right. and you know, there's a, there's another thing at the to, it's kind of an attitude where if they don't like a president and a president doesn't like them. they know that they can out wait that president,

because if you're in the leadership at the ca, you've been there 202530 years, sometimes more than 30 years. presidents come and go every 4 years or every 8. and so if they don't like you, they just wait and somebody else is going to come and take that position. yeah, yeah, it's the way it works. you know, and we've seen that on the, on the j f k record, you know, it's like trump rhetorically. you know, no president has ever been so hostile to the see a rhetorical yes from. that's right. and it's right. and since harry truman, when push came to serve with the j. f k records, he gave them everything they wanted. he didn't push back at all. now, you know, we don't know why trump did that. i assume it was, you know, he had something else on his mind that day. i don't attribute any grand importance to it. sure, but you know, a biden, you know, biden wouldn't buck them either. now he's moreland, institutional list type guy,

he's going to go along to get along. you know, at the end of the day they need the cia and cia doesn't need them. that's what the j f. k file story tells us. i think you are 100 percent right. that unfortunately is all we have for you today. i'd like to thank our guest, historian, author, and journalist jefferson morley, and thank you to our viewers. i'm glad that you could join us. the buddha once said, there are 3 things that cannot be hidden, the sun, the moon, and the truth. to which the great scientists, galileo added, all truths are easy to understand. once they are discovered, the point is to discover them and john curiosity and this has been the whistleblowers. ah, ah. 2 2 ah,

the senior us lawmakers are just there might be an american military presence in taiwan staging. already views, washington, involvement with the island as a breach of the one china policy. washington is deliberately provoking a dang, just like it did with moscow. that's the so again, still podcast, host is a guess on the latest episode of going underground. and you believe the u. s. has abandoned its previous policy, which is walking back on that because they know where china sped by. red light is just like what they do with people.