There s Probably No Smoking Gun

There's Probably No 'Smoking Gun' in the JFK or Epstein Cases. We Should Be Allowed To Look Anyway.
Matthew Petti
Mon, July 14, 2025 at 3:45 PM EDT


Case files from the civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein on display outside the Palm Beach County Court in Florida on Dec. 4, 2018. ©Emily Michot/Newscom
Case files from the civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein on display outside the Palm Beach County Court in Florida on Dec. 4, 2018. ©Emily Michot/Newscom
© Reason
The CIA's coverup about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is unraveling. Despite the agency denying that it knew anything about assassin Lee Harvey Oswald before the murder, newly declassified documents shed light on the links between Oswald, a Cuban guerrilla group known as the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), and CIA case officer George Joannides.

Silver Shortage Alert: What Every Investor Must Know
Ad
Silver Shortage Alert: What Every Investor Must Know
GoldenCrest Metals
call to action icon
Several months before the assassination, Oswald had offered to work for the DRE, a CIA proxy overseen by Joannides. Years later, Joannides—operating under a fake name—became the CIA's liaison to Congress during a congressional investigation into the assassination. The documents add to a pile of evidence that the CIA had been following Oswald for years and deliberately covered it up afterward.

Oswald "really wasn't alone, he had the CIA looking over his shoulder for four years," said Jefferson Morley, a historian who has long pushed for opening the Joannides files, in an interview with The Washington Post.

Decades of dogged investigative work have poked plenty of holes in the official story around Kennedy's assassination. But they haven't produced a smoking gun, a single document that demonstrates what the CIA wanted out of Oswald or what knowledge it had about his fatal plans. And that smoking gun may never turn up; Morley and others speculated to the Post that Joannides was running an "off-the-books" operation through the DRE.

Related video: Things About RFK's Assassination That Still Don't Make Sense (Grunge - Video)
much to advance Palestinian goals.
Current Time 0:40
/
Duration 10:31
Grunge - Video
Things About RFK's Assassination That Still Don't Make Sense
0
View on Watch
View on Watch
The same is likely to be true about another case that's in the news this week: that of the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. After he died in custody in 2019, calls have grown for the government to release the "Epstein client list." As I argued several months ago, such a list likely doesn't exist. What does exist is a scattered patchwork of evidence about the people Epstein associated with and leads waiting to be followed up on.

To be clear, the official story on Epstein has some troubling inconsistencies. Last week, the Department of Justice and FBI released a memo stating that they found "no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions." But it has been publicly reported that Epstein attempted to extort tech tycoon Bill Gates over Gates' (legal) extramarital affair.

The Trump administration has not exactly inspired confidence in its transparency or diligence. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in February that bombshell information was "sitting on my desk," then released a heavily redacted set of documents labeled "Epstein Files: Phase 1," most of which were already public. Last week, the Department of Justice claimed it would release "raw" surveillance footage from Epstein's prison wing on the night he died, then published a sloppily compiled video clip with a minute of footage missing.

Your Retirement Income Guide
Ad
Your Retirement Income Guide
Fisher Investments
call to action icon
President Donald Trump himself told his followers on Saturday not to "waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about." (It was a change in tune from last year, when Republican politicians attacked the Democratic administration for not pursuing the Epstein case enough.)

Government coverups rarely involve compiling one document that lays out all the wrongdoing in detail—such as the CIA's "family jewels" in the 1960s—and hiding it from the public. It makes far more sense for officials to keep the wrongdoing from being put to paper in the first place. Conspirators make informal plans off the record. Internal investigators turn a blind eye to evidence that they think might lead to inconvenient places.

Epstein was only arrested in 2019, after all, because reporting by Julie Brown in the Miami Herald and a lawsuit by victim Virginia Giuffre forced the federal government to reopen the case. Authorities had originally struck a plea deal with Epstein in 2007 that gave him a short prison term along with immunity for any co-conspirators who might come to light.

Retirement Income Strategies
Ad
Retirement Income Strategies
Fisher Investments
call to action icon
Official defensiveness around information is not necessarily proof that officials know about a smoking gun hidden around the corner. Oftentimes, it seems that they fear an investigation because they don't know what it will turn up. And that's exactly why it's worth pushing for more transparency, whether in the Kennedy assassination or the Epstein case. Even if there is no smoking gun to be found, following the trail can bring worthwhile revelations. Often the search can go in completely unexpected directions.

The JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 has helped uncover many other mysteries of Cold War espionage history. Just this year, the U.S. government was forced to release information about its espionage in Mexico and on U.S. soil, its foreign election interference, its 1961 assassination of Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo, and its role in the South Vietnamese coup of 1963, all because these documents touched the intrigue surrounding Kennedy's assassination.

Following Epstein's connections to world leaders could similarly uncover modern political intrigue. While some conservative media have fixated on Epstein's connections to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, his Rolodex also included a British prince, a close confidant to the royal family of Dubai, a Russian cabinet minister, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, and Trump himself.

Not everyone who crossed paths with Epstein was involved in his sexual crimes. (Although the paraplegic physicist Stephen Hawking visited Epstein's private island, for example, the internet memes about his debauchery there were completely fake news.) Still, it's worthwhile on its own to figure out which powerful figures Epstein brought together and what they discussed at his gatherings.

While there's a danger in being too credulous about fantastical conspiracy theories, there's also a danger in being too credulous when powerful people insist that there is nothing to see here. After Trump told conservative journalist Charlie Kirk to tone down his criticism of Bondi over the Epstein files, Kirk said on air that he's "done talking about Epstein. I'm going to trust my friends in the administration. I'm going to trust my friends in the government."

With that attitude, we wouldn't know what we know about the Kennedy assassination—and Epstein would still be a free man.

The post There's Probably No 'Smoking Gun' in the JFK or Epstein Cases. We Should Be Allowed To Look Anyway. appeared first on Reason.com.



***
Smoking gun

Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history

Tools
Appearance hide
Text

Small

Standard

Large
Width

Standard

Wide
Color (beta)

Automatic

Light

Dark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Smoking gun (disambiguation).

Illustration by Sidney Paget (1893).
The term "smoking gun" is a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act, just short of being caught in flagrante delicto. "Smoking gun" refers to the strongest kind of circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence. Direct evidence would be eyewitness testimony of someone who saw an actus reus (the actual alleged act), while connected events (the preceding chase, etc.) are considered circumstantial.[1]

Phrase origin
The phrase originally came from the idea that finding a very recently fired (hence smoking) gun on the person of a suspect wanted for shooting someone would in that situation be nearly unshakable proof of having committed the crime. A variant of the phrase (as "smoking pistol") is used in the Sherlock Holmes story, "The Adventure of the Gloria Scott" (1893).[2]

Extended meaning
In addition to this, its meaning has evolved in uses completely unrelated to criminal activity: for example, scientific evidence that is highly suggestive in favor of a particular hypothesis is sometimes called "smoking gun evidence".[3]

See also

Look up smoking gun in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Burden of proof (law)
Incontrovertible evidence
Nixon White House tapes § "Smoking Gun" tape
References
 Walton, Douglas (2010). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Penn State Press. p. 78. ISBN 978-0271048338.
 Safire, William (26 January 2003). "Smoking Gun". The Way We Live Now. The New York Times. On Language. Retrieved 6 May 2015. We rushed into the captain's cabin . . . there he lay with his brains smeared over the chart of the Atlantic . . . while the chaplain stood with a smoking pistol in his hand at his elbow.
 "Smoking Gun". Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved 30 January 2018.
Categories: Metaphors referring to war and violenceMetaphors referring to objectsEvidenceForensic evidenceSmokeEnglish phrases