All exposed by "the government" or by the media.
That's totally false. All were exposed by whistleblowers, leakers, or people who got caught red-handed.
The news media covered it after the fact and the government admitted to it after the fact.
I can't think of a single scandal on that level that was exposed by the government or the news media.
In this case we're talking about planning the assassination of the president - in secret; everyone consulted went along - carrying it out - in secret, everyone went along - and then covering it up - in secret, everyone including people years/decades later, went along with the coverup. People decades later covered this up? Even today, right now?
The people who have made deathbed confessions have largely been ignored.
The people like RFK, LBJ, and Dr. George Burkley, who suspected that there was a conspiracy but expressed those opinions only in private have been ignored.
There are tons of stories like the above in the JFK assassination.
Careers and political aspirations might've prevented others from coming forward when they couldn't prove that there was a conspiracy. After all, if you come forward with a bold claim like that but don't have rock solid proof, you could nuke your own career and political aspirations. I believe that was RFK's logic in his decision not to express his doubts about the Lone-assassin narrative publicly. He was running for President when he was murdered of course...
Let's take the Nordstream bombing as an example. Imagine that over the next 50+ years the government and media conduct multiple investigations into the bombing. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, several generations of reporters in the media, historians and investigative journalists all investigating this.
Do you think the act would have been kept secret? Why would people in the Pentagon or CIA 50 years from now cover it up? For what purpose? For what benefit? There is none.
Does it benefit the US to admit that we played a role in destroying a major ally's infrastructure? Of course not. And that's why the US will never do it's own investigation. You don't ask questions that you don't want to know the answer to.
As for the Europeans, even they admit that it's probably better not to know "who" did it given the political consequences:
“Is there any interest from the authorities to come out and say who did this? There are strategic reasons for not revealing who did it,” said Jens Wenzel Kristoffersen, a Danish naval commander and military expert at the University of Copenhagen. “As long as they don’t come out with anything substantial, then we are left in the dark on all this — as it should be.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/07/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-theories.htmlSince no country is yet ruled out from having carried out the attack, officials said they were loath to share suspicions that could accidentally anger a friendly government that might have had a hand in bombing Nord Stream.
In the absence of concrete clues, an awkward silence has prevailed.
“It’s like a corpse at a family gathering,” the European diplomat said, reaching for a grim analogy. Everyone can see there’s a body lying there, but pretends things are normal. “It’s better not to know.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/03/nord-stream-bombing-yacht-andromeda/The very same logic applies in the JFK assassination. Some
didn't want to know if there was a conspiracy due to the potential consequences. LBJ notably feared a hot war with the Soviets. Others might've feared that JFK's domestic enemies were involved.
So the motives for coverups don't necessarily apply only to those who were involved in the conspiracy. Sometimes there are political motives for others who weren't involved choosing to engage in coverups.
Sometimes you come across as very naive about how politics and power work...
