If the media simply reports that there is nothing much new in the files, no one is going to read their stories. There is also an unfortunate desire on the right to relate the JFK assassination to the "deep state" efforts against Trump. As in they want the CIA and others to have conspired to kill JFK as an example that the "deep state" is out to get presidents. I have no doubt that there was a concerted effort to undermine the Trump administration during his first term. That has no relevance to whether there was a conspiracy involving the highest levels of the government to assassinate JFK. Much of what they are reporting appears to be a product of ignorance. Some of the reports that I saw focused on the fact that the FBI/CIA had been tracking or were "aware" of Oswald before the assassination as though this were new and significant information. Oswald had defected to the USSR and was a known political nut. Of course the FBI/CIA were interested in him for that reason. That is not evidence, however, that they were conspiring with or grooming him for the assassination.
I would think that these alleged powerful conspirators in the "deep state" would try a sort of lawfare against JFK before shooting him in broad daylight in the middle of the street with 400 people watching? Does that make sense? Even more illogical then have to cover all of that up for half a century. Perhaps try lawfare first: That is leak damaging information on JFK (mistresses, health, make it up) to favored media people. Or blackmail him (recall the letter sent by the FBI to King?). Something easier. Doesn't that make sense?
Clearly there were some - some - in the FBI and elsewhere who used lawfare to try and get Trump. I think they thought they had legitimate reasons. Wouldn't they, in this imaginary situation with JFK, try that first? But instead they went through this absurd plan? Were they idiots?
