CIA and JFK: Complicity or Incompetence?
An in-depth conversation about what we think happened on November 22, 1963.
Last month, I spoke about the last of the JFK files on the Skullduggery podcast while facing the questions of host Mike Isikoff, investigative reporter for Yahoo News, and Phil Shenon, former New York Times reporter and JFK author. When we were done, Isikoff laughed and said, “We were in deep.” And I laughed too because it was true. We had a rare in-depth, informed conversation about the causes of JFK’s assassination. It was a pleasure because we disagreed, and by exploring our disagreement, we understood the complex issue better. That’s why I laughed and that’s why I’m posting the conversation here.
Skullduggery, Dec. 16, 2022: JFK: The Mother of all Conspiracy Theories.
The crux of the issue, we decided, is the question: Was the CIA incompetent when it came to JFK’s assassination. Or were they complicit? Mike and Phil took the former position. I took the latter. I disagree with them but they know the case. They know what they’re talking about. They’re not MSM lackeys or tools of the CIA—both have done a hundred times more real investigative reporting than most of the geniuses of Twitter. (I recommend Isikoff’s reporting on the Lavender Scare: “Uniquely Nasty:” The U.S. government’s war on gays.”) I disagree with Shenon’s JFK book but he did original reporting and interviews, which is more than some can say. Both Isikoff and Shenon have reported extensively in the national security milieu, and they are independent. They made their case. I made mine. You decide who’s right.
JFK Facts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
"They know what they’re talking about."
No, they don't.
Isikoff is so arrogant and dismissive of the research community and their findings (which he apparently knows next to nothing about) that listening to him is a painful waste of time. He obviously hasn't spent the time studying the matter. Like all Lone-Nut-Killed-by-Another-Lone-Nut theorists, he merely accepts the Warren report at face value and dismisses all evidence to the contrary. I'm embarrassed for him.
A reviewer on Amazon says this about Shenon: "Asking Phil Shenon to tell you about the JFK assassination is like asking David Duke to give you the real low down on what happened in the Holocaust."
Michael Isikoff is a character I have encountered many times in 45 years of trial practice. He is loud, interrupting and cocksure. He is like many prosecutors and high paid insurance attorneys I have faced. He not only denies your assertions, ignoring the strong evidenciary basis underlying them; he huffs and puffs and snarls and just denies and defers. His entire case is based on snark. In many courtrooms, especially in MAGA country, his Limbaugh act is enough to win the verdict.
I am proud Jeff stood up to him and politely exposed the facts. Remember them? They are supposed to determine the outcome in our justice system.