Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by RajT88 504 days ago
I am sure it makes some TLA look bad. I fully expect to not have everything released.
3 comments

It depends on how bad it is. For example, if it turned out that a Secret Service officer fired a stray round that hit the President then I don't think we're going to see that made public ever.
I love that one, but IIRC all the serious inquiries into it did not deem it credible. Great out-of-the-box thinking though!
I'm quite sure that's why Trump is ordering this release.

He's explicitly at war with the deep state and existing institutions. Trying to tear them down and seize power. If these files make the FBI and/or other TLA(s) look bad, further public eroding trust and support, he wins.

The Republicans are also starting to win back non-white voters. Shedding light on the MLK assassination certainly does not hurt that effort.

The FBI.

The FBI was out for MLK.

In his first term Trump liked the FBI so he allowed them to redact the JFK files he was legally supposed to release to the public.

But in 2025 they’re his bogey man so releasing it so Kash Patel has an even easier time remolding it in his image makes a lot of sense.

If the FBI had really done it, I doubt they would have left classified records saying they had. Most likely, either the records would have been destroyed long ago, or they never would have created any in the first place

Other possibility: they really didn’t do it, but there’s some classified record which sure makes it sound like they did. e.g. some record of J. Edgar Hoover joking about doing it

If the FBI did it off the record then technically it's not the FBI it's a rogue actor or cell that happens to work for the government

If a bus driver for a federal prison snapped and shot him we could say the same thing.

Where is the line between agency and private party if it's not drawn on the record?

I think there’s a big difference between “random FBI field agent decides to murder someone” and “FBI director asks his deputy to murder someone”. Attributing the murder to the FBI as an institution makes a lot more sense in the second case than in the first
Personally, I agree with you. We have semantic problem.

*If the director asked, and we know that he asked, then it is on the record.

*If the director asked off the record, then it's called classified.

*If there is a conviction then it was a rogue cell.

The agency is clear in all cases whether we like it or not. Same as a corporation, but worse.

Legally, a government agency like the FBI is immune to criminal prosecution. Its officials can commit crimes as individuals, but it can’t commit a crime as a government agency because government agencies are excluded by legal definition.

But, it still can be judged guilty or innocent in the court of public opinion and the accounts of future historians

Yeah, I mean. Given what is known about the FBI and MLK how much worse could it get?

Fun fact: there is a statue of MLK at the FBI academy in Quantico.

I don't think the majority of the public is aware of the extremely devious stuff the FBI has done w.r.t. civil rights leaders etc.

Even if nothing substantively new is released it gives him a chance to rant about the FBI as part of his mission to seize power and discredit the "deep state" while cosplaying as a supporter of truth, justice, people of color, etc.

does the FBI have anything memorializing Ernest Hemmingway as well? That'd certainly be ironic.