> the correct figure now is about 3,600 documents in the collection of 320,000 documents still contain redactions. That might mean we might have most of the document except for a sentence, a word, a name. In other cases, you know, several pages or, you know, I don't think there's any document that's withheld in its entirety. But, you know, it's still a lot of records. The bulk of those are CIA records. A lot you can tell from the context, like Mark says, stuff about surveillance techniques, covert arrangements with foreign governments. They're very -- they guard those very closely. That's one of the things that they're still keeping. But, you know, why is this necessary? I mean, again, to step back, you know, the JFK Records Act, all this stuff was supposed to be made public in 2017. Judge Tunheim, the head of the review board, I asked him, I said, What did you expect after 25 years? How many records would have to be -- remain secret? And he said, Out of the stuff that I saw, you know, maybe 100 documents. Not, you know, and when in 2017 the CIA and FBI came to Trump and said, We have 14,000 documents that have redactions that we couldn't possibly remove. So it's like, why is the presumption around a Presidential assassination that we're going to keep -- you know, keep these secrets for good?
My dad had classified knowledge from his time in the air force, and he wouldn't even discuss the category of information let alone give an overview of the contents, 50 years onward
You want people to tell the truth to government investigations in the future, and not hold something back because they think in 15 years the government might just release a transcript of everything you told them.
I also remember that story, but it's no justification for keeping something with this much public interest secret.
And don’t forget that cases ‘pertaining to national security’ get thrown out all the time. [https://www.fjc.gov/content/overview-7]
Either because key evidence is classified, or witnesses are, or testimony would be considered a threat to national security, etc.
If they interviewed everyone at that parade, what they were doing etc, and some of those people were completely uninvolved but maybe having affairs, or doing something immoral (whatever that is), then shouldn’t they be afforded privacy? Eg Imagine one would be mortified to have what sex toy was in their pocket at the time documented in public transcript.
There were people in the crowd who can easily be identified, too. For example, Zapruder’s testimony would have to leave out that he shot a movie and was life on television that day, and quite a few other details to anonymize it.
The first thing that comes to mind is Sandy Hook. Those poor parents being harassed by people accusing them of being “false flag” actors and all that nonsense. If you were a key witness in the JFK assassination you can bet nutjobs hell bent on some conspiracy theory or another are going to track you down and harass you.
Not to mention the way more vanilla stuff: people whose testimony incriminated friends, family members etc etc
FTFY
It would have taken thirty seconds to Google "President Trump administration priorities" and come up with https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/01/pres...
The efficacy or utility of those priorities doesn't matter - the fact is that the claim that "the only (or top) priority is reducing waste" is trivially easy to invalidate, in addition to making the gross logical error that good uses of taxpayer money (of which "making sure that the taxpayers are aware of what their money is being used for" is one) and bad/inefficient uses of taxpayer money are equivalent, which doesn't even require a Google search to understand is wrong.
Comments like this shouldn't be on HN. The guidelines directly state "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle." (which is what this comment did) and that HN is for intellectual curiosity, which also didn't happen because it took less than a minute to invalidate the core premise of this comment. HN is explicitly for intellectual curiosity and thoughtful discussion like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42874301 - not this.
i hate the wall of text on this site. i hate how some people feel entitled to tell others their remarks aren't welcome.
it truly takes away from this site to see the police show up on almost every single thread.
You either did not read my comment, intentionally and maliciously lied about what it said, or accidentally responded to the wrong comment, because it's extremely clear that I never said anything remotely like "you're not allowed to post anything except a wall of text arguing with someone".
> i hate the wall of text on this site.
Then go somewhere else. Hacker News is explicitly for intellectual curiosity, which involves thinking, which involves writing[1][2]. If you don't want to think, then this is not the place for you.
> i hate how some people feel entitled to tell others their remarks aren't welcome.
Your remarks are not welcome if you're going to violate the guidelines and engage in political flamewars. Just like in real life, there are things you can't or shouldn't say. That shouldn't be a foreign concept.
> it truly takes away from this site to see the police show up on almost every single thread.
If the "police" are those calling out violations of the guidelines - you're factually incorrect. The guidelines add to the site, because they're crafted in a way to allow intellectual discussion. Comments such as yours, and the grandparent comment, take away from the discussion by pushing aside curious thought and replacing it with emotional outburst and base instinct.
Notice that you didn't make a single logical point in your comment, nor did you inform or enlighten me or satisfy my intellectual curiosity - you just spoke about your feelings and your hatred. Why would I go to HN when I can read that on Twitter or Bluesky?
[1] https://paulgraham.com/words.html [2] https://paulgraham.com/writes.html
you probably also think that mk ultra is a conspiracy theory.
Are the Dulles still alive ?
We know who killed JFK
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/671ky4/is_th...
> Yes, the official explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald was, on his own, responsible for murdering President Kennedy is overwhelmingly accepted as correct. It has largely held up to intense scrutiny over the past 50 years and there is no substantial evidence toward any other explanation.
> As I mentioned in my older post linked elsewhere, one of the reasons why there was so much criticism of the official explanation after the fact is that the investigation was not handled well. This resulted in a lot of seemingly contradictory and unexplained information that opened the door to questioning the overall conclusion as a whole.
LLMs may help convert the text into a form for the constraint solvers, but they're not the tool I'd use for actually connecting the dots.
Classic Trump PR move. Claim he's doing something that's already done and then take credit loudly.
And, yet, they never will.
Why would you not want this to be released?
Weird.