First black member of Secret Service finally testifies to JFK committee, details Chicago assassination plot

The man John F. Kennedy called 'the Jackie Robinson' of the Secret Service finally got to testify before a Congressional committee Tuesday — alleging fellow agents were often drunk on the job and there was a so-called 'Chicago plot' to kill the president before his 1963 assassination in Dallas.
His head bowed, Abraham Bolden, 90, spoke with difficulty into a microphone when he addressed the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by Zoom from his home in Chicago. The committee is probing the assassination of the president.
But the audio cut off immediately as Bolden began to speak, effectively muting his testimony on the live stream.
Advertisement
5 Abraham Bolden speaks into a microphone during his ZOOM testimony during a Congressional committee investigating the assassination of President Kennedy.
oversight.house.gov
'On June 6, 1961, I walked into history,' said Bolden, according to a transcript obtained by The Post. 'I was assigned to the White House detail in Washington, DC to assist in protecting the life of the president. And I never met a more human and fair-minded person than President Kennedy.'
The Trump administration released tens of thousands of previously classified documents with respect to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, his younger brother Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
Advertisement
In the past, Bolden claimed government agents discredited him by arresting him on trumped up charges of bribery in order to prevent him from speaking to the federal Warren Commission, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren to investigate the shooting in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
In addition to Bolden, the committee heard from Don Curtis, a physician at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas who was on the team that tried to save the president's life.
In his opening statement he said that the Warren Commission did not interview him or the other doctors, and that the bullet wounds he observed on Kennedy were not consistent with the version of a lone gunman that the Warren Commission reported.
Four other witnesses also gave testimony during the second hearing of the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, chaired by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), which begins Tuesday.
Advertisement
5 Abraham Bolden has long claimed that the Secret Service agents who were assigned to protect John Kennedy were often drunk and ignored threats to the president's life.
TNS
Douglas Horne, a former Assassination Records Review staff member, said medical records and autopsy photos are missing as are other key documents.
Bolden, a former highway patrolman and Chicago-based Secret Service agent, was the first black member of the Secret Service, personally hired by Kennedy to be part of his presidential detail.
He met the former president during the former president's stop in Chicago in 1961 while he was guarding a basement restroom at the McCormick Place banquet hall.
Advertisement
5 John F. Kennedy was shot while he made a campaign stop in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Bettmann Archive
'He was serious about giving everyone equal opportunity,' Bolden said of Kennedy in a 2008 TV interview. 'He never walked by me once that he didn't strike up a conversation.'
In his 2008 book, 'The Echo from Dealey Plaza: The True Story of the First African American on the White House Secret Service Detail and His Quest for Justice After the Assassination of JFK,' Bolden wrote about the racism he encountered from other agents on the president's team, claiming they were often drunk on the job.
In his testimony Tuesday, he spoke about overhearing an angry 1963 meeting between Kennedy and his vice president Lyndon Johnson in the Oval Office in which Johnson accused Kennedy of dropping him from his run for president the following year, warning the president to ''better stop f—king with me.''
'He was redder than a sack of beets,' Bolden said, referring to Johnson when he stormed out of the Oval Office.
He also outlined a report he heard at a staff meeting about threats to kill Kennedy with 'a high-powered rifle' at an Army-Air Force footbal game in Chicago on November 2, nearly three weeks before he was killed.
'Information that I had revealed was that some Cuban exiles were trying to assassinate the president when he came to Chicago,' Bolden said, adding that he knew from one of the agency's weekly meetings that there had been threats against the president at the campaign stop in Dallas where was shot dead.
5 Experts addressed a Congressional committee Tuesday about the assassination of President Kennedy.
Bettmann Archive
Advertisement
'That information came to me every Wednesday morning when we got a rundown in what was happening in all the other districts,' said Bolden in the interview.
In 1964, Bolden was fired from the Secret Service after being charged with trying to sell government secrets for a $50,000 bribe. He denied the allegations, saying that he was framed for trying to expose corruption within the agency.
Although his first trial ended in a hung jury, Bolden was convicted at his second trial and sentenced to 15 years, even after some witnesses had said they had been pressured into lying to prosecutors. At the time, the father of three gave piano recitals to raise money for his legal defense
5 Abraham Bolden arriving for his trial in Chicago in 1964. He claims that government agents tried to keep him from testifying about the Secret Service by convicting him on trumped-up charges.
TNS
Advertisement
Bolden served 39 months in federal prison, with a two-and-a-half year probation. During his time in prison, Mark Lane, an attorney who wrote a bombshell book in 1966 –'Rush to Judgment' — that alleged that Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, could not have acted alone, came to visit him in prison, he said.
Bolden said that while he was in prison, he was drugged by guards and transferred to the 'psychiatry division' so that he wouldn't talk. 'They tried to fill me with drugs,' he said.
He was pardoned by President Biden in 2022.
'Very often, as you people know, justice takes a long time,' he told the committee, adding that he was grateful to Biden for the pardon. 'Carry on, my brothers and sisters. Carry on this investigation. I truly thank you for giving me a chance to tell my story day because not too many years from now, the only thing in my pockets will be dirt. But the truth cannot die.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

39 minutes ago

• The Hill

Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'

Newsweek

2 hours ago

• Newsweek

Texas Homeowners Worry About 'Loopholes' in New Property Tax Cut Law

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Texas homeowners struggling under the growing burden of rising housing costs are supportive of the new package of property tax cuts signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on Monday. However, some are worried that appraisers may find "loopholes" around them to keep bills high. "The governor is trying to help, but local counties will just find loopholes in the laws and pull the money from our pockets," Jeff, a Parker County Texas homeowner, told Newsweek, revealing a deep frustration with Texas' County Appraisal Districts (CAD) which seems to be shared by several other readers. What's Behind Texas Homeowners' Frustration? Property tax bills have surged over the past five years in Texas due to skyrocketing home values exacerbating locals' affordability struggles. Between 2019 and 2023 alone—years marked by the pandemic homebuying frenzy—property taxes in the Lone Star State jumped by 26 percent, according to Cotality. As of 2025, Texas homeowners pay the seventh-highest property taxes in the country, according to SmartAsset, at an effective rate of 1.63 percent, significantly higher than the national average of 0.90 percent. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva On average, a Texas homeowner pays $3,872 a year in property taxes, which are levied by local governments and used to fund public services, including schools, roads, police, and firefighting. The rise in property taxes, which has occurred nationwide, has hit senior homeowners the hardest, as they often rely on a fixed income and are less well-equipped to shoulder a suddenly heavier financial burden. What Do the New Laws Promise Homeowners? The new package of property tax cuts, which includes two key bills raising the homestead exemption in the state, is Abbott's latest attempt to offer homeowners relief after signing into law what was the largest property tax cut in the state's history in 2023. One bill contained in the package, signed by the governor on Monday, SB 4, would raise the existing homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 for all homeowners. Another, SB 23, would raise it to $200,000 for those with disabilities or those aged 65 and above. The two bills include constitutional amendments that would need to be approved by voters in November to be enshrined into Texas state law. Why Do Homeowners Remain Skeptical About Relief? Several readers wrote to Newsweek, expressing enthusiasm for the new property tax cuts, but also voicing concerns that they might not result in a significant reduction in their bills. "No homeowner over 70 should pay property taxes. And 65 to 70 only half. Our senior years are fraught with enough worries, medical, food, insurance etc without worrying about losing their home," one Austin-based homeowner said. "I've had to sell all of my investment holdings to afford property tax for my remaining years. But it seems that the CAD just raises our appraised values to counteract Abbott's help." Jeff said that his home has appreciated in market value by 73 percent since 2020, a number that he can hardly believe is accurate. "Local governments blame [price] growth, but in all reality, it's poor management by our local government," he said. "I personally have now protested my taxed appraised market value three times now, each time getting minimal relief. The fact that they are willing to adjust your market value tells you they are playing the numbers to bring in more money," he said. John, another Texas homeowner, said that, on average, his property evaluations have increased from $270,000 to $563,000 over the last eight years. "My annual property tax leapt from $4,300 annually, to just north of $7,000," he said. "This past year, as well as this year, upcoming, will be in the neighborhood of $6,200, largely due to the efforts of the past two legislative periods," he added. The news of the new property tax cuts signed by Abbott was "music to my ears," John said. "You've always heard that mantra, 'I don't want to rent my home after it's paid for from my school district,'" Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said after the two bills passed the state legislature. "Well, seniors, to the average senior out there, you're never going to have to do that again." John said that Patrick's comment about paying rent to the school district "is no quip." "My breakdown, most recently, is at $15,00 city, $1,250 county, and $3,500 school district distribution," he said. "While it's true that 'it takes a village,' my kids are adults in the workforce themselves. While paying much higher property taxes to schools, I was still on the hook for community pencils, paper, notebooks, and Kleenex, for distribution to children by the teachers," he said. "Along with anything teachers did to create a more engaged environment in their classrooms, that was out of their pockets." While John appreciates how municipal governments spend the money he pays in property taxes, he feels that there is insufficient transparency regarding the way school districts allocate their funding. "Long story short, I will support this legislation to the extent of posting pro-bill signage in my yard, and on my vehicle, if I do think it will come to that," he said. "People are sick to death of the Central Appraisal Districts and their chokehold on property owners." Are you a Texas homeowner? I'd like to hear from you about your experience with property appraisals and rising property tax bills. Email me at

Hamilton Spectator

3 hours ago

• Hamilton Spectator

Israel-Iran war stretches into a second week without diplomatic breakthrough

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Hours of talks aimed at de-escalating fighting between Israel and Iran failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough as the war entered its second week with a fresh round of strikes between the two adversaries. European ministers and Iran's top diplomat met for four hours Friday in Geneva, as President Donald Trump continued to weigh U.S. military involvement and worries rose over potential strikes on nuclear reactors. European officials expressed hope for future negotiations, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he was open to further dialogue while emphasizing that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the U.S. while Israel continued attacking. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes,' he told reporters. No date was set for the next round of talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue 'for as long as it takes' to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear program and arsenal of ballistic missiles. Israel's top general echoed the warning, saying the Israeli military was ready 'for a prolonged campaign.' But Netanyahu's goal could be out of reach without U.S. help. Iran's underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility is considered to be out of reach to all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs . Trump said he would put off deciding whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran for up to two weeks . The war between Israel and Iran erupted June 13 , with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multitiered air defenses , but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Israel's defense minister said Saturday it killed a commander in Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard who financed and armed Hamas in preparation for the Oct 7. 2023 attack on Israel that sparked the 20-month long war in Gaza. Israel said Saeed Izadi was commander of the Palestine Corps for the Iranian Quds Force, an elite arm of the Guard that conducts military and intelligence operations outside Iran, and that he was killed in an apartment in the city of Qom. Worries rise over the perils of attacking Iran's nuclear reactors Addressing an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. 'I want to make it absolutely and completely clear: In case of an attack on the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment,' said Rafael Grossi, chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog. 'This is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences could be most serious.' Israel has not targeted Iran's nuclear reactors, instead focusing its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Grossi has warned repeatedly that such sites should not be military targets. After initially reporting no visible damage from Israel's Thursday strikes on the Arak heavy water reactor, the IAEA on Friday said it had assessed 'key buildings at the facility were damaged,' including the distillation unit. The reactor was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so the damage posed no risk of contamination, the watchdog said. Iran previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the U.S., France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60% — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% — and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but it is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich uranium up to 60%. Israel is widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear weapons program but has never acknowledged it. Israel says 'difficult days' ahead Israel said its warplanes hit dozens of military targets across Iran on Friday, including missile-manufacturing facilities, while an Iranian missile hit Israel's northern city of Haifa, sending plumes of smoke billowing over the Mediterranean port and wounding at least 31 people. Iranian state media reported explosions from Israeli strikes in an industrial area of Rasht, along the coast of the Caspian Sea. Israel's military had warned Iranians to evacuate the area around Rasht's Industrial City, southwest of the city's downtown. But with Iran's internet shut off — now for more than 48 hours — it's unclear how many people could see the message. The Israeli military believes it has destroyed most of Iran's ballistic missile launchers, contributing to the steady decline in Iranian attacks. But several of the roughly three dozen missiles that Israel said Iran fired on Friday slipped through the country's aerial defense system, setting off air-raid sirens across the country and sending shrapnel flying into a residential area in the southern city of Beersheba, a frequent target of Iranian missiles where a hospital was hit Thursday. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .