Coup d’états in America:
What the JFK Files Tell Us
Professor David Denton
with editing by Michelle Swanson, Ed Tatro and Gabrielle Lyell
(documents mentioned in this article can be found here)
In the year 2021, 58 years after the assassination of JFK, the relevancy of this event to today’s issues should be considered. Some may prefer to conclude that it's simply time to move on, either accepting the institutional explanations of the event or going with the idea that “we will probably never know what happened.” Others, especially those in major media outlets, try to make the connection between 11/22/63 and many of the fringe conspiracies of today, whether it be about the 2020 election, the coronavirus or a Qanon fantasy.
It is true that large numbers of Americans have embraced the idea that JFK’s death involved more than a lone assassin, just as they have latched on to the various conspiracy theories of today. The suggestion by some is that these beliefs are examples of how millions can be easily duped into believing in a falsehood. As a result, the search for the truth of the JFK assassination is regarded as a forerunner to today’s paranoia. It is dangerous to suggest that all conspiracy theories became popular among those people who “wanted to believe'' a particular narrative that simply is not true. This is a sweeping generalization that discounts the reality that all conspiracy theories are not alike. The critical difference between the murder of JFK and many fringe ideas circulating today is that in the case of the former there is a preponderance of facts that prove conspiracy.
It becomes particularly tiresome, in the case of the JFK assassination, that serious researchers essentially must argue the same facts over and over again to the nation’s institutions, yet they receive little reaction from them. Among those many facts are the reality that the single bullet theory remains as impossible as ever, despite decades of efforts by Warren Commission defenders to make it seem plausible. There is no denying the fact that a large multitude of witnesses at Dealey Plaza, including twenty police officers on hand the day of the assassination, believed shots came from the front. When millions of Americans saw the Zapruder film and the clear indications on it of a frontal shot for the first time on Geraldo Rivera’s national TV show in 1976, it convinced a large segment of them that they had not been told the truth about JFK’s murder. Despite these facts, the media and academic institutions still cling to the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. The single bullet theory, regardless of its huge flaws, continues to be essential to any lone nut scenario. Any close inspection of it, however, reveals the impossibility that one bullet could have caused seven wounds in President Kennedy and John Connally and still be found in near perfect condition afterwards. The Zapruder film, even though it may well have been tampered with as many researchers suspect, clearly indicates that Kennedy and Connally were not hit by the same bullet, and in the intervening years, Connally and his wife, who was also seated in the front seat, have confirmed this multiple times.
In truth, the Kennedy assassination may no longer be the mystery many might think it to be. The evidence that someone else besides Oswald committed the crime is irrefutable. Future historians, unencumbered by agendas or concerns about being labeled “conspiracy theorists,” will clearly identify the certainty that powerful forces were involved in the murder of JFK. As a society, we hear so much about disinformation and “fake news” and we have seen a resulting erosion of trust in our institutions because of it. Due to the failure by those same institutions to come to any ultimate truth enabling a pursuit of justice regarding JFK’s assassination, a clear line can be drawn between 11/22/63 and today’s public distrust of what they are told.
Former CIA chief and leftover cold warrior R. James Woolsey released a book earlier this year entitled Operation Dragon: Inside the Kremlin’s Secret War on America that focuses blame for the assassination on Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and the Russians. This is a complete falsehood circulated by some in the CIA immediately after the event and has no rational basis.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy and Khrushchev were clearly looking for a way out of the Cold War and away from the brink of nuclear destruction. When Kennedy delivered his famous American University “We Are All Mortal” speech in June of 1963 on peace, the Kremlin allowed, for the first time, a U.S. president’s speech to be printed in the Soviet press, verbatim and unredacted. Despite stiff resistance by hardliners in both countries, Kennedy and Khrushchev managed to secure the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in September 1963, signaling that both were rational partners in the quest to work toward peace. Assuming Khrushchev was serious about finding a way out of the Cold War, why would he risk an assassination attempt against an American president that could potentially lead to World War III?
A recently declassified document strongly indicates what the Soviets believed happened in Dallas, based on their own intelligence and their attitude toward Kennedy’s murder. This document, dated April 1967, originated from a Soviet source referred to as “Shamrock,” and indicated that by 1967, based on their own intelligence gathered by the KGB, the Russians believed that “monopolists” (the military-industrial complex) murdered Kennedy. Other documents revealed, early on, that they believed the ultra-right wing and LBJ were also involved. Possibly more significant is the apparent sadness they felt over the death of Kennedy. They mourned his death and viewed it as a “great loss” for the whole world. According to Shamrock, the Soviets “felt they could trust President Kennedy and could deal with him on a cooperative basis.” It is apparent that his death meant that any opportunity to gain accommodations from the United States that could help rein in the Cold War was lost.
The CIA and the New Documents: Harvey, Hunt, Morales
This author has written extensively about William Harvey and the new documents. Harvey’s personnel files generally reveal an admiration for Harvey by his superiors in the CIA, although it also indicates his propensity to go rogue. The declassified files on E. Howard Hunt, however, suggest a more mixed opinion. A 1961 document indicated he received some “black marks” over security issues, including leaking classified information while in Uruguay. It stated that Hunt "has been a problem in the past [and] apparently continues to be a problem.” Furthermore, the document suggested that the “subject should be given at least a strong warning concerning indiscreet remarks and unauthorized disclosure of information.” He also was given a reprimand in 1969 for leaving a safe open (intentionally?) at a CIA station.
After being involved with surveillance of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater prior to the 1964 election, he found himself in trouble once again, eventually being downgraded to contract status and finding himself shipped overseas and stationed at the CIA base in Madrid. Hunt fancied himself a writer, and penned several novels that were oftentimes merely thinly veiled re-creations of past events and scenarios associated with the CIA. For this, Hunt was called in on more than one occasion by the agency over concerns about his using too much sensitive information in his literary works. Once, when the CIA requested a meeting with Hunt, he inquired if the conversation was going to be taped or not, indicating his level of distrust toward the agency. In the early 1970s, when Hunt was among those caught in the Watergate break-in, there were efforts to determine whom Hunt was connected to within the CIA. This led some to suggest they barely knew Hunt or hadn’t had any dealings with him for several years. In his 2007 “confession,” Hunt suggested Harvey and Dave Morales were among those involved in the “Big Event” (JFK’s murder) and that he (Hunt) refused to be anything more than a “benchwarmer” because of his reluctance to be actively involved with an “alcoholic psycho” like Harvey.
Unlike Hunt, the declassified files of Morales indicate he had a stellar reputation inside the CIA, especially regarding black ops. A 1961 document described Morales as a “one-man gang” and his work was “of the highest order quantitatively and qualitatively.” It further described his versatility while operating out of the JMWAVE station, excelling in the areas of “counterintelligence, sabotage, political action, propaganda, and a great number of miscellaneous activities that defy classification.” One can only speculate what the “miscellaneous activities'' were. It should be noted that toward the end of Morales’s life he confided in friends that “we took care of that son of a bitch,” referring to JFK. Harvey had an eye-opening interview with the HSCA in 1976, when he suggested that to ensure success in an assassination attempt, one should “simply appoint a single senior officer to do everything to run the operation, kill the person, bury the body, and tell no one.” Is it possible that Morales, the “one-man gang,” was the “senior officer” Harvey was referring to?
“Doomed to Failure by Design”
JFK researchers have long speculated that the Bay of Pigs operation by the CIA was set up to fail in order to maneuver JFK into a full-fledged invasion of Communist Cuba, and there are good reasons to believe that. Allen Dulles, then head of the CIA, was a featured speaker at a sunny resort in Puerto Rico on April 17th, 1961, far removed from having any control over an invasion by 1,400 CIA trained, anti-Castro exiles into Cuba. Upon returning to the United States and being informed the invasion was teetering on the edge of disaster, Dulles appeared unconcerned. After the failure of the operation, Robert Armory Jr, the CIA’s highly respected Chief of Analysis, was stunned that Dulles did not utilize him in the operation, and instead used what he called “a strange bunch of people with no knowledge of Spanish… and absolutely no sense or feel about the political sensitivities of these Cuban exiles….I think we could have had an A team, instead of being a C-minus team.” In The Devil’s Chessboard, author David Talbot concludes the operation was “meant to fail” and the “wily CIA chief set a trap for Kennedy, allowing the President to believe that his ‘immaculate invasion’” could succeed, even though Dulles knew that only U.S. soldiers and planes could ensure that.”
Of course, we know Kennedy did not fall for this trap and refused to send the United States military to Cuba. One of the declassified documents recently released gives further confirmation that this, in fact, might be the truth about the Bay of Pigs operation. The document, dated 5/9/61, discusses information given to the CIA station in Miami from New York Journal reporter Dan Brigham. He had apparently spoken “to many Cuban exiles and personal sources” engaged in the Cuban invasion. Brigham concluded that the invasion was “badly handled from every aspect by the CIA”, and more importantly reported that “a segment of the Cuban exiles is of the opinion that the recent Cuban invasion was doomed to failure by design on the part of CIA and are holding the CIA responsible.”
More on Dulles
After the Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy took public responsibility for its failure, but would ultimately fire Dulles, Richard Bissell, and Charles Cabell from the CIA over the debacle. It did not mean, however, that Allen Dulles would not be a power player behind the scenes before and after the assassination. In fact, Dulles visited LBJ at his Texas ranch in September 1963. Why? After the assassination, Dulles appeared to be deeply involved in protecting the Agency’s interest, in terms of reinforcing the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Former president Harry Truman wrote an op-ed article in the Washington Post, exactly one month after the death of JFK, charging that the CIA had grown out of control since he established it. Truman stated, “I have never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”
It was not difficult for some to believe that because of the timing of the piece Truman was implying that the CIA may have been, in some way, behind Kennedy’s death. It is clear that Truman’s article attracted the Agency’s attention, and it would be Dulles’ duty to do damage control, even though by then he was no longer officially affiliated with them. He sent a strongly worded letter to Truman imploring him to back away from his position. When that failed, he personally visited the former president to, once again, try to convince him to recant his statements about the CIA. After it became apparent that Truman was not budging, Dulles made a point of writing a letter to CIA counsel Lawrence Houston suggesting that during their meeting the ex-president was not aware of what was in the article and that it was all wrong. In essence, he was suggesting that Truman, almost 80, was suffering from senility. This was complete disinformation. Truman continued to reiterate clearly and publicly his position that the CIA was an out-of- control organization long after his meeting with Dulles.
A newly declassified document reveals even further the extent to which Dulles, no longer a member of the Agency, was heavily engaged in a cover-up operation for the CIA. This secret document, dated 4/30/64, was sent by Deputy Director of Plans Richard Helms to then private citizen Allen Dulles. The document was meant to alert Dulles to the fact that a book was being published by Thomas Buchanan about who allegedly was responsible for the death of President Kennedy. The book, Who Killed Kennedy, argued that Kennedy’s assassination was a result of a right-wing plot. Buchanan was known to have previous connections with the Communist party, and his work would be dismissed or ignored by those in the media because of this. He, like other early authors about the JFK assassination such as Joachim Joesten and Mark Lane, would be subjected to leaks, attacks, and smears from both the CIA and the FBI. But what is most significant here is the fact that Richard Helms, one of the top individuals in the CIA, was alerting Dulles directly to the impending release of this book, and then took steps to make sure the communication was classified as secret. This strongly indicates, along with his attempts to strong arm Truman, that Dulles was managing their efforts to muzzle any suggestions of a conspiracy in Dallas, even though he was no longer running the Agency. One additional and intriguing statement in this document is included at the bottom, stating “Dissemination applicable to GPFLOOR Cables.” GPFLOOR was the CIA acronym for Lee Harvey Oswald. Apparently, the CIA felt it was important enough to segregate this document along with other cables associated with Oswald.
Cuban Exile Extremists and their Various Connections
Among the declassified files there are documents associated with two Cuban exiles the CIA dealt with, both of whom are examples of the extremism and interconnectivity with various groups of that community.
Fernando Penabaz (Coburn) was an intriguing character with connections to myriad individuals and organizations of a suspicious nature associated with the death of JFK. He initially gave up his U.S. citizenship to become a Cuban lawyer before returning to the United States in 1960. He was of “ops interest to JMWAVE (CIA) psych warfare section” until 1963, when supposedly he was dropped because of involvement in U.S. politics. He was an advisor to the Republican National Committee on Cuban affairs and was “good friends” with Richard Nixon, but there was also a darker, more extreme side to Penabaz. He was a member of the right-wing Christian Anti-Communist crusade and had connections with the John Birch Society. He was also associated with General Edwin Walker, the right-wing fanatic drummed out of the military by JFK for his extreme behavior. Walker is a suspicious character himself regarding the alleged shot Lee Harvey Oswald took at him before the assassination. Many researchers believe this reported incident was staged to give further evidence that Oswald was a Communist fanatic. Walker’s own version of events regarding this incident changed more than once and Penabaz helped circulate his version of the story. Penabaz was also one of several Cuban exiles who, post-assassination, attempted to spread stories suggesting the murder of JFK was a Communist plot originating with the Cubans and/or Russians.
The declassified materials released in 2017 also contain documents on a more notorious Cuban exile, Louis Posada Carriles, who had a long running relationship with the CIA and was given the cryptonym WKSCARLET-3. One of the aforementioned documents listed FIVE aliases he used. Posada had many occupations throughout his life, including tire salesman, auto body mechanic, and exterminator. He was an expert in arms and explosives and trained Cuban exiles in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion, though he didn’t take part in the actual invasion. In 1963-4, he spent time in the United States Army and was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, where he achieved a rank of Second Lieutenant.
Despite his varied occupations, the one thing that remained consistent throughout his life was his utter contempt for Fidel Castro and his desire to have him removed and/or eliminated. Peter Kornbluh, head of the independent National Security Archives Cuba project which has fought to have documents relating to Posada declassified, suggested that “The CIA created and unleashed a Frankenstein.”
Early on, at least, the CIA apparently had a wholly different view of Posada. In one declassified document he is described as “not a typical kind of ‘boom and bang’ individual. He is acutely aware of the international indications or ill-planned or overly enthusiastic activities against Cuba.” If, in fact, the CIA saw Posada as a moderating influence among the Cuban exiles, one can only wonder what the radical elements of the community they were using were like.
One of the recently released documents from 1973 indicated the CIA scrambled to separate themselves from Posada after they suspected he was involved in trafficking cocaine from Columbia. It stated, “Given above contact with known violators there is little doubt that Posada is a trafficker.” By 1975, the CIA had apparently severed their relationship with Posada, but that didn’t stop him from operating across Latin America, conducting bombing and terror campaigns against Castro’s Cuba all the way into the 21st century. Although his involvement was never proven, it was long suspected that Posada participated with his associate Orlando Bosch in the notorious bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976. The U.S. State Department concluded that he appeared to be “the person who planned the sabotage.” Adding to his notoriety, Posada was apparently connected to mobster Frank “Lefty” Rosenthal. Posada died in 2018 at the age of 90 and is still regarded as a hero by many in the Cuban exile community. Whatever their reasons, the CIA is still withholding information on Posada.
One thing is for certain, Penabaz and Posada typified those among the Cuban exile community with their numerous connections to the CIA, the military, right-wing groups, and the mob, as well as their radicalization and extremism. Although there is no evidence that either participated in the JFK assassination, they were the type of individuals inside the CIA-backed Cuban exile community that could have been utilized for that purpose.
Antonio Veciana
No one in the Cuban exile community has evoked more discussion and debate among JFK researchers than Antonio Veciana. Many of them regard Alpha 66, the exile group Veciana headed, as a potential player in the JFK assassination. There is no question they were a deadly serious outfit totally committed to the removal, or elimination, of Castro. At one point, they concocted a plot (which never got off the ground) to blast Castro and some Russian Cosmonauts with a bazooka. A House Select Committee investigator named Gaeton Fonzi would track Veciana down in the 1970s. He told Fonzi a story that, if true, could have blown the JFK case wide open. Veciana suggested that in September of 1963, he met briefly with a CIA officer he knew as “Maurice Bishop” and one Lee Harvey Oswald. Going on the premise that “Bishop” was an alias, Fonzi had a police sketch made up based upon Veciana’s description. It looked strikingly like the CIA’s David Atlee Phillips, who happened to be the agency’s head of the Western Hemisphere division. But when Fonzi brought Veciana face-to-face with a very nervous Phillips, the former refused to identify Phillips as Bishop. Fonzi always believed that Veciana was concealing the truth, and that Bishop was, in fact, Phillips. Like some previously mentioned Agency members, Phillips hinted at the end of his life the possibility of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination.
Six years before his death, at a 2014 conference in Washington D.C, Veciana admitted for the first time that Bishop was, in fact, Phillips. This certainly got the attention of a lot of JFK assassination researchers, and also created a lot of controversy. Why did Veciana change his story? Was it to help sell his soon to be published book? Was he telling the truth this time? Author Dr. John Newman, after doing some serious research on the Cuban exile, believed not. He found discrepancies in Veciana’s story, in particular the timeline of when Veciana first claimed he met Phillips in Cuba didn’t work. Ultimately, he came to believe Veciana fabricated the story about meeting Oswald and Phillips to lead investigators away from the potential involvement of military intelligence in the assassination of JFK. Newman also questioned whether there ever really was a “Maurice Bishop” in the CIA.
Also, significant here is the question as to whether Veciana and his Alpha 66 group had closer ties to the military or the CIA. In fact, the newly declassified documents lend credence to the idea that Veciana and Alpha 66 did have closer ties to the military. A document dated 12/3/62, sent from the CIA to the FBI, suggested the “Army has also used Antonio Veciana, head of Alpha 66, as a source of information since early October 1962.” Another document from 1962 suggested that even though the CIA was in contact with Veciana, his group was “taking precautions to avoid CIA penetration.” It may be, however, a stretch to suggest that Veciana was not involved with the CIA. In the same document there is a suggestion that Veciana was not above accepting some financial help from them, “but under no circumstances would the Agency be identified with its (Alpha 66) activities.” In another document dated 7/3/63, J. Edgar Hoover sent a warning to the Department of the Army, instead of the CIA, that one of Alpha 66’s top individuals, Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo, was targeted by mafia head Santos Trafficante for assassination. These indications that Veciana and Alpha 66 were tied into the military and were keeping the CIA at arm's length fit into the narrative that Veciana was trying to cover up his military connections and deflect blame for Dallas on the CIA.
But there’s another side to the story. Author and researcher Lisa Pease told this author that one of her contacts inside the CIA named Jim Rose, AKA Carl McNabb, suggested that whatever Veciana said was “as good as gold.” Rose was, in fact, in the middle of Cuban affairs for the CIA and at one-point infiltrated Castro’s inner circle. During a conference earlier this year, author Dick Russell, having interviewed Veciana, stated that he believed Veciana’s story. Whether or not Veciana ever actually met Oswald together with Bishop, the evidence seems strong that Phillips was, in fact Bishop, because multiple CIA sources have indicated as such.
There’s also little doubt that Phillips remains a suspicious character in the JFK assassination story. He lied to Congress regarding surveillance tapes in Mexico City being routinely destroyed. Taped conversations of Hoover and LBJ shortly after the assassination proved they still existed. In addition, it was Phillip’s “assets” in Mexico City who tried to push an Oswald/Castro connection after the assassination. The fact that Veciana and his fanatical Alpha 66 group had close ties to military intelligence does raise questions about a military connection to 11/22/63. Indeed, Dr. Newman and other researchers have come to believe in the possibility of a Seven Days in May type scenario. The most likely originating point of a plot within the military could be a small agency referred to as ACSI (Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence). Researcher Bill Kelly described it as “one of the most ubiquitous, but least known military intelligence agencies with offices in the Pentagon. “Colonel Fletcher Prouty described it as the “black intelligence arm” of the U.S. military. According to the Department of Defense’s official history, “The Technical Intelligence Field Agency, ACSI, was a small, special-purpose military unit created in 1960 to coordinate the intelligence activities of the Army technical services.”
One of the most eye-opening documents among those recently released came from this particular agency. The document, dated 1/21/63 and sent to the Chief of Staff of the Army, included “ideas “of what to do with the Castro regime. The second proposal, with an asterisk by it for emphasis, suggests that they “remove Castro and/or other key political leaders by assassination, kidnapping, bribery or by placing a bounty on them.” The most striking thing about this proposal is the sheer audacity of it. It is common knowledge that the CIA engaged in assassination plots against foreign leaders, but it is difficult to find any clear directives of them on paper. Only slightly less extreme “idea” is included further down in the document when it suggests initiating “biological warfare against plant and animal tissue,” but not humans. Also significant is the fact the document mentions utilizing Alpha 66, indicating a relationship between ACSI and the Cuban exile group. In summary, the document paints a picture of a radical, extremist operation within the US military.
ACSI and Potential Connections to Lee Harvey Oswald
One of the most important documents to surface from recent releases was associated with ACSI member Dorothe Matlack. It was a request for approval to employ her as a liaison to the CIA. One thing that catches one’s attention right away about the document is the date of it, 1/28/58. As mentioned earlier, ACSI’s official history suggests it was not created until 1960. Why the discrepancy? Is there an innocent explanation or was the agency “dark” for its first two years of existence?
This secrecy may be explained by the document’s stated responsibilities for Matlack, including to “track defectors.” Obviously, this fits the time frame when Oswald was considered a defector to the Soviet Union. And there is more to ACSI’s potential tracking of Oswald. On April 26, 1963, in Washington D.C., ACSI member Colonel Sam Kail met with George de Mohrenschildt and Haitian businessman Clemard Charles. de Mohrenschildt was promoting Charles as a potential replacement for then-President of Haiti, “Papa Doc” Francois DuValier. There is good reason to believe that de Mohrenschildt was Oswald’s CIA handler in Dallas. Since he had just left his “friend” Lee behind, one can only wonder what information was being passed along. Researcher Bill Simpich would recount another meeting that could be best described as a debriefing of de Mohrenschildt by ACSI’s Dorothe Matlack and Tony Czajkowski of the CIA’s Domestic Contact Division:
On May 7, 1963, Matlack and Czajkowski had the opportunity to meet with George de Mohrenschildt, his wife Jeanne, and Charles. Charles was unexpectedly called away by a “Mr. Green,” thanks to some machinations by Czajkowski. The debriefing specialists Matlack and Czajkowski now had the de Mohrenschildts all to themselves--which provided them an opportunity to finish any small talk about George’s time in Texas and their time with a certain family of Soviet defectors.
There are other indications of continual interplay between the CIA and ACSI. Colonel Kail, stationed as a military attaché at the Cuban Embassy in Havana from 1958 to 1961, worked alongside the CIA’s Dave Morales, Wayne Smith, and David Atlee Phillips. A recently declassified document shows that Kail was “on a covert detail to the Agency (CIA) from 1962-66.” Kail himself admitted he was having a difficult time knowing whether he was working for the U.S. Army or the CIA.
The Higgins Memo
Something that has attracted a lot of interest from researchers is a memo that originated from Colonel Walt Higgins, and its source was ACSI. It characterizes discussions at a JCS meeting on September 25, 1963, run by General Curtis LeMay (LeMay was in charge because JCS head Maxwell Taylor was in Vietnam at the time.) The meeting's official memorandum suggests it was held to discuss “military support of the CIA for operations against Cuba.” Desmond Fitzgerald, head of Task Force W, the Cuban covert policy making body of the CIA., presented the status of operations against the Castro regime.
The key topic Fitzgerald discussed, according to the memo, was the possibility of recruiting some Cuban military personnel who might “break with Castro” to be part of a plot to kill the Cuban dictator. Higgins’ memo suggested this plot could be similar to Operation Valkyrie, the 1944 failed plot to kill Hitler that utilized members of the German Army, and in many cases, without their knowledge of the true plot. Fitzgerald suggested this plot was “being studied in detail to develop an approach.” This action against Castro, like many of the other ill-fated, CIA backed assassination attempts never came to fruition. And yet, suspiciously, this “detailed study” has never surfaced in any documents, even when requested by FOIA attorneys Jim Lesar and Dan Alcorn.
A Military Plot Against JFK?
Some researchers have speculated that the Valkyrie Operation plan may have ultimately been turned on JFK, hence the Seven Days in May scenario mentioned previously. There is certainly plenty of evidence of radicalization inside the military. There was stubborn opposition to Kennedy’s steps to end the Cold War and his movement toward world peace, as well as, in some cases, an utter hatred and contempt for Kennedy that existed within the ranks of the U.S. military hierarchy.
In 1962, in what came to be known as Operation Northwoods, General Lyman Lemnitzer, no friend of JFK, presented a radical JCS plan to conduct a fake Cuban terror plan that could be blamed on Castro’s Communist government and create a pretext for invasion of the island. The proposals presented were summarily dismissed and ridiculed by Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense McNamara, no doubt creating a greater rift between the administration and the Joint Chiefs.
General LeMay, a true Kennedy hater who openly challenged the President during the Cuban Missile Crisis, is at the top of the list of those who might have participated in a plot. Some researchers believe LeMay may have been among the generals present who appeared to be in control at JFK’s controversial autopsy.
Even General Maxwell Taylor, considered to be a friend of the Kennedy family, has come under scrutiny by some researchers, including Dr. Newman, who considers Taylor to be a “Trojan Horse.”
In the end, this radicalization of the top of the military hierarchy and utter contempt for Kennedy’s initiatives towards peace on their part, along with their willingness to cooperate with like-minded elements inside the CIA, certainly created the potential for a plot against the President.
A Coup d’état is a Coup d'état: From 11/22/63 to 1/6/21.
A coup d’état is defined as the seizure and removal of a government and its powers. In addition, it is an illegal and unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator. Most serious researchers of the JFK murder who have rejected the lone assassin theory accept the fact that it was a coup. But what about the Capitol insurrection on January 6th, 2021? Are there any parallels between the two?
In today’s polarized political environment, it may come down to party affiliation whether you regard the events of January 6th as an attempted coup d’état. There are those who see this event as nothing more than a spontaneous riot by misguided Trump followers who had no chance whatsoever of succeeding its objective of overturning the election. In the opinions of some Trump loyalists, inundated with disinformation from right-wing sources, the insurrection was orchestrated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Georgia Congressman Andrew Clyde (R) compared the insurrectionists to “tourists visiting the Capitol”. Trump himself, during some of his more delusional moments, has praised the rioters as “loving and patriotic” and “great people…they were ushered in by the police” and there was “hugging and kissing.” Republican Congressmen chose not to support a bipartisan commission to investigate the event, instead hoping to move on. These mischaracterizations and denials have, in fact, created a dangerous drift towards fascism in this country.
This situation recalls a suggestion, made by New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison who was frustrated by what he saw as a cover-up in the JFK murder, that the powers that be would someday proclaim that JFK never existed. A coup d’état is a coup d’état whether it was attempted 58 years ago or only 7 months ago, even if it was destined to fail.
This article has explored potential military connections to the JFK assassination. Can anything similar be found in the January 6th insurrection? At least regarding any involvement at the highest levels just the opposite could be said. Led by General Mark Milley, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), the military made it clear as early as last summer they would have no role in the upcoming elections. In addition, they pushed back hard when Trump suggested he could use the military as an instrument of power to clear the streets of protesters last summer. Milley regretted his involvement in Trump's photo op at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Lafayette Square in the summer of 2020 when the Federal Park Police used teargas on citizens. He released an apology that his presence there gave a false impression that the military was involved in domestic politics. The fact that he offered a very unusual and very public apology shows how sensitive he was to the idea of involving the military in politics. It was apparent, even before the election was held, that Trump had no intention of accepting any results that went against him, and this fact would raise concerns inside the military that the president would orchestrate some attempted coup.
Within days of his defeat, Trump decapitated the civilian military leadership, highlighted by the firing of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and replacing him with Trump loyalist Chris Miller. Why would a lame duck president bother to replace an agency head a few weeks before his own departure unless there was some ulterior motive? This certainly got the attention of the Joint Chiefs. According to the Washington Post’s Carol Leonig and Philip Rucker, authors of I Alone Can Fix It, there were multiple statements from General Milley that reflected his deep concerns about an attempted coup after the election. “They may try but they’re not going to f****** succeed. You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.” The irony of the preceding statement is surely not lost on those who believe a coup occurred in Dallas.
The JCS feared Trump’s call to action among his followers would lead to unrest, giving him a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act. Milley viewed Trump as an “authoritarian ruler with nothing to lose.” He saw the time after the election as a “Reichstag moment”, with MAGA marchers as the modern American equivalent to Hitler’s Brownshirts in the streets. In the event it was necessary, the JCS had a failsafe plan of mass, rolling resignations if Trump attempted to follow through on the threats.
Security Stripping
On January 7th, 2021, the day after the Capitol insurrection, this author had a conversation with my friend Mal Hyman, Coker University professor and author of Burying the Lead: The Media and the JFK Assassination. Early on, we both agreed on the possibility of “security stripping” regarding what happened the day before at the Capitol Complex. Most of those familiar with the JFK assassination are aware of the evidence of past Secret Service failures in terms of protecting their client in Dallas. Many of these failures are recounted by Vince Palamara in his excellent work, Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy. (10)
Clear indications of similar things regarding the January 6th insurrection are coming to light, as well. The aforementioned interim Secretary of Defense Miller would, in fact, send out a directive (shown below) two days before the riot to the D.C. National Guard that there would be no authorization for weapons, ammunition, or protection equipment such as helmets or body armor. In addition, there would be no interaction by the guard “physically with protestors”, no arrests, and no deployment of “air assets.”
According to the congressional testimony of Major General William Walker, Head of the D.C. National Guard, when the rioting ensued, he had his Guard members waiting in their trucks for three hours before orders to engage finally came through. Miller denied seventeen requests to send in the Guard. Trump, despite pleas from many in his own party, refused to use his authority to call them in. Eventually it was Vice President Pence, himself a target of the insurrectionists for certifying the results of the Electoral College vote, who gave the order to send in the Guard, long after the Capitol had been breached.
Ex-Military Types at the Capitol
There may be a clear difference between the Joint Chiefs’ position this past year and that of the same body in 1963, but that does not mean there was a complete absence of military involvement on January 6th. There was, in fact, a disproportionate number of ex-military personnel who participated in the insurrection. As of the writing of this article, there have been 61 current or ex-military persons arrested for their involvement in the insurrection. And then there was convicted (and then pardoned) felon and Trump sycophant, General Mike Flynn, who went so far as to suggest that Trump should impose “martial law” to overturn the election results. At the May 29, 2021, Qanon-organized For God and County Patriot Roundup conference in Dallas (of all places) Flynn suggested there ought to be a Myanmar-style coup in the United States. “I want to know why what happened in Myanmar can’t happen here...No reason, I mean, it should happen here.” He has since claimed his words were taken out of context by the corrupt media, but his tone and demeanor in the video clip clearly show he meant what he said. Just recently, Flynn, appearing at a political rally at the Church of Glad Tidings in Yuba City, California, boasted that maybe he’ll “find somebody in Washington” upon receiving the gift of an AR-15 assault rifle. It is not far-fetched to compare Flynn’s extremism and ties to fringe groups to a General LeMay or a General Walker in JFK’s time.
A Parallel Between 11/22/63 and 1/6/21: The Presence of the Radical Right Wing
There is no question that right-wing extremists participated in the Capitol riot earlier this year. Groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and the Boogaloo Boys were all present. In March of 2021, FBI Director Chris Wray stated during a congressional hearing that “domestic terrorism” is “metastasizing” and that white supremacy is the biggest terrorist threat in the country. Beyond the January 6th coup attempt, events in the past two years seem to back up Wray’s claim and demonstrate the Capitol attack wasn’t merely a one off.
In April of 2020, in what could be viewed as a dress rehearsal, heavily armed individuals as a part of an “American Patriot Rally” occupied Michigan’s Capitol building to protest that state’s Coronavirus lockdown. Although there was no violence like what occurred in D.C., it no doubt galvanized extremists for future actions. Seven men, some of them connected to the Boogaloo Boys and the Three Percenters, were eventually charged with plotting the kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Hundreds of those associated with these extremist groups are among those who have been prosecuted for participating in the January 6th insurrection, and as more continue to be arrested more will be understood about who was behind its planning and how high the connections go. Trump loyalist Roger Stone, a key planner in the Stop the Steal protest that preceded the riot, was utilizing the Oath Keepers as bodyguards, some of whom participated in the insurrection. There are also indications that this group stashed weapons on the other side of the Potomac River in Virginia and were ready to ferry them over if events turned their way.
The group most likely involved on the ground were the Proud Boys, a far-right, nationalist organization loyal to Trump who have been known to engage in violent skirmishes with left-wing groups. Violence committed by right-wing extremist groups is nothing new in America, and there are certainly connections of this type that must be explored in the assassination of JFK. One of the clearest indications of this is the story of Joseph Milteer:
Long-time FBI informant Willie Somerset, who successfully infiltrated multiple, radical, right-wing groups, described Milteer as the “most violent-minded man in America.” Milteer traveled around the country establishing connections with the White Citizens Council, the John Birch Society, the Ku Klux Klan, and the American Nazi Party. In a conversation between Milteer and Somerset taped 13 days before the assassination, Milteer predicted that JFK would be shot from an office building with a high-powered rifle, and somebody would be picked up to throw the public off. Milteer would later brag to Somerset that he was in Dallas for the assassination, stating “I didn’t go to kill him. But I didn’t mind seeing him killed.” The FBI had hard evidence of Milteer’s potential connection to the assassination, but according to former FBI agent Don Adams, who was put in charge of investigating Milteer, they essentially swept it under the rug.
Milteer is far from the only name associated with the Kennedy assassination who had connections with right-wing elements. Guy Banister, the former FBI agent who was managing Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, was connected to many of the same right-wing groups as Milteer. According to long-time JFK researcher and author Ed Tatro, Clint Murchison, Sr., the Texas oil magnate, Johnson ally, and Kennedy hater who was arguably the most powerful man in the country, was connected to and made financial contributions to George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi Party.
What Can We Learn from These Events?
Without question, there is an inherent danger in failing to recognize the reality of a coup against whatever semblance of democracy we have left, whether it happened in 1963 or 2021. Downplaying an attempt to overturn an election simply because it was orchestrated by fringe types could prove fatal to our 245-year American experiment. Yale historian Tim Snyder was predicting as early as 2017 that President Trump would attempt a coup, if necessary, to stay in power. In September of 2020, Snyder argued that Trump had an “authoritarian instinct” and was surrounding the election in “the authoritarian language of a coup d’état…It's going to be messy.” (13) Proven correct, Snyder suggests the threat is far from over, stating “a failed coup is practice for a successful one.”
Hitler’s 1923 Beer Hall Putsch was dismissed as a mere clown show at the time. Results of this attempt to seize power from the Weimar Republic, including radicalization of the people and an encouraged willingness to commit violence, were also present on January 6th. Let us keep in mind that Hitler only spent nine months in jail for this attempted coup. How long will the perpetrators of the Capitol insurrection spend behind bars? Snyder warned that “We’re looking almost certainly at an attempt in 2024 to take power without winning an election.” Americans should all be paying attention to this because the rest of the world certainly is.
Can We Find Historical Truth in the Murder of JFK?
Despite the overwhelming collection of evidence that repudiates the idea of a lone assassin and points to conspiracy, gaining validation of that truth within our institutions in 2021 still proves to be difficult. Most who reside within these institutions simply have stuck their heads in the metaphorical sand or refused to engage in a discussion of any idea deemed conspiratorial or not publicly acceptable.
JFK’s assassination severely damaged, but did not destroy, our democratic institutions. It did, however, allow the National Security State to assert its will on the American public. Since the beginning of our Republic, the American people have always had to push back against the undue influence of the wealthy and the powerful. History suggests this is the norm. Over 2,500 years ago, Athenian Greeks created the most democratic state the world has ever seen, yet they too had to deal with the constant threat of corrupt influence by the powerful and the potential takeover by demagogues.
However, there remains reason for optimism. Despite the dominant agenda of the aforementioned National Security State, it was the relentless public outcry and protests by average Americans that led to the end of the tragedy in Vietnam and forced the man who held a great deal of responsibility for that debacle, Lyndon Johnson, to decide to step aside rather than run for office again.
This article has dedicated a lot of attention to the growing evidence that points toward potential military involvement in the JFK murder, but the whole truth about what happened on that day is probably broader than just focusing on a single entity such as the military or the CIA. Ed Tatro may have the best explanation of what happened in Dallas. He described it as “A collaboration of the most powerful people in the country” aligned against Kennedy. Gordon Ferrie, (14) who described himself as being “in the middle of the military industrial complex,” told me that when JFK was shot his initial reaction was “Which group?” because he knew there were so many enemies in powerful places who had lined up against Kennedy.
This author had a conversation with S.T. Patrick, publisher of Garrison: The Journal of History & Deep Politics, about how to explain the truth about the complexities of the JFK murder to the average person. S.T. suggested the Texas Schoolbook Depository was a good place to start and this author agreed. Who owned the building and hired Lee Harvey Oswald? The answer is D.H. Byrd. What do we know about him? Byrd, co-owner of Ling-Temco-Vought and founder of the Civil Air Patrol which Oswald joined, was a key figure in the Texas oil industry and was closely connected to Texas power brokers, oil barons, the military industrial complex, and Texas politicians. He was a close ally of Lyndon Johnson and John Connally. He was associated with the right-wing “Suite 8F” group, which included George and Herman Brown of Brown and Root and Lawrence Bell of Bell Helicopters, key players in America’s military industrial complex. It also included powerful right-wing oil men Clint Murchison, Sid Richardson and H.L. Hunt; all fierce defenders of the oil depletion allowance Kennedy sought to end. In addition, Byrd was a close friend of General Curtis LeMay.
It is difficult to ignore that, in effect, there were only two degrees of separation between some of the most powerful right-wing forces in America, most or all of whom had contempt for Kennedy, and the man who was set up to take the fall for his death. Thirty years after his powerful and controversial film JFK was released, Oliver Stone has produced a new documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. No doubt there will be critics, just as there were who dismissed his original film as fiction. Nonetheless, there is no question of the legacy of the film JFK. Because of it, legislation was passed that led to the release of thousands of classified files related to the assassination. Thanks to the release of those files, we now know much of Stone’s film was never that far from the truth. As proof of that, one could look back to the point in the film where New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison suggests that the assassination was “a coup d’état with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings.”
The Importance of Seeking Justice in a Free Society
Looking back on the American experiment and looking ahead to its prospects for survival, citizens should view carefully what a coup d’état means, whether successful or not. It is not just something that can occur on another continent in some unstable, third world country. We are beginning to understand it can happen anywhere. There is a phrase, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, which is especially relevant to our country’s current state of affairs: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” (15) This statement, regarding America’s future, has never been more prescient. When asked what form of government had been created, Benjamin Franklin said “We have a Republic, if you can keep it.” But those who quote Franklin usually leave out the second part of his statement, which may be just as significant today: “Our responsibility is to keep it.”
A big part of that responsibility is the maintenance of a free and open society based on the idea of justice. On November 19, 2019, Colonel Alexander Vindman, a whistleblower from inside the Trump administration, gave testimony at the President’s first impeachment hearings. When asked if he feared retribution for coming forward, Vindman, who came to the U.S. from Ukraine at age three, stated he wasn't, replying “This is America, right matters.” Right has mattered in America…sometimes.
Unfortunately, sometimes we have also come up short in that respect. America, or any society that espouses a democratic, free society and wishes to sit on the moral high ground, must constantly be in the pursuit of justice. An honest look at our history reveals that the murder of John F Kennedy was one of the gravest injustices done in our 245-year existence, and it remains unresolved. The generations of researchers and academics who have sought the truth in this case have to face the reality that their efforts to bring some measure of justice, at least in their lifetimes, probably will not come to pass. Justice often takes lifetimes to arrive, and those who work the hardest for it sometimes never get to see it when it does.
Eleanor Roosevelt was, without a doubt, one of the most amazing and courageous figures of the 20th century. As the First Lady, she was one of the first true advocates, at least among those in positions of power, for civil rights for African Americans in a time when racism was rampant. When the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to allow opera singer Marian Anderson an opportunity to perform because she was black, Roosevelt set up a concert for her on the Lincoln Memorial in 1939 that was attended by 75,000 people. Without her intervention, the legendary Tuskegee Airman would never have been given an opportunity to fight in World War II. She risked her life to fly into the Pacific theater, during the war to visit with the combat troops and the wounded. Seeing the grimness of what they were going through and the level of their sacrifice, Roosevelt became a key advocate for the GI Bill, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in American history because it helped create the strongest middle class the world has ever seen.
Possibly her most controversial stand was against the removal of Japanese American citizens from the West Coast of the U.S. after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The entire country was overcome with anger and fear, and those of Japanese descent became a convenient target. Roosevelt became a voice crying in the wilderness, defending both the Constitution and those citizens who had no voice. It proved to be in vain, at least early on. Breaking his promise to his wife, FDR eventually signed Executive Order 9066, one of the most egregious acts in American history, which led to 100,000 Japanese Americans being sent to internment camps. Over time, the American public would see the injustice of the EO and the entire removal and internment policy. In 1988, President Reagan officially apologized to those who were removed and interned, as he signed the Civil Liberties Act, which provided compensation to survivors in the amount of $20,000. However, Roosevelt died in 1962, never living to see this legislation passed that vindicated her actions and provided some measure of justice to those Japanese American citizens this country so poorly treated. Likewise, those crying out in the wilderness for justice in JFK’s murder may well not live to see the day when it is served, yet future generations of historians, unencumbered by agendas and fear of being marginalized as conspiracy theorists, may ultimately arrive at the truth.
What Are the Lessons of History Here?
We are learning that the American Democratic experiment is more fragile than previously thought, and we must come to grips with the reality that a coup d’état happened in America on November 22, 1963, and it was attempted once more on January 6, 2021. If men can, either by rifle or by riot, overturn an election and remove a head of state without consequences in America, it can certainly happen again, and the next time might prove fatal to the Republic that Franklin and others created both for themselves and generations to come.