[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE JFK FILES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
TASK FORCE ON THE DECLASSIFICATION
OF FEDERAL SECRETS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 1, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-027 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Mike Turner, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Byron Donalds, Florida Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Greg Casar, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Emily Randall, Washington
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Jake Greenberg, Chief Counsel for Investigations
Clark Abourisk, Deputy Chief Counsel for Investigations
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida, Chairwoman
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Minority Member
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Eric Burlison, Missouri Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Eli Crane, Arizona Dave Min, California
Brandon Gill, Texas Jasmine Crockett, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 1, 2025.................................... 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. Jefferson Morley, Independent Journalist and Author
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Mr. Oliver Stone, American Filmmaker
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Mr. James DiEugenio, Researcher and Author
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Mr. John Davisson (Minority Witness), Senior Counsel and Director
of Litigation, Electronic Privacy Information Center
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Testimony of James Angleton, No. 10006-CIA; submitted by Rep.
Luna.
* Final Determination Notification, No. 10056-CIA; submitted by
Rep. Burlison.
* JFK Assassination System ID Form, No. 10191-CIA; submitted by
Rep. Burlison.
* Letter, August 21, 2017, from NARA, to National Security
Council, re: redactions; submitted by Rep. Burlison.
* Letter, August 21, 2017, from NARA, to National Security
Council, re: withheld documents; submitted by Rep. Burlison.
* Transcript, USHOR, ``NARA Security Classification Problems
Involving Warren Commission Files & Other Records''; submitted
by Rep. Burlison.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
THE JFK FILES
----------
Tuesday, April 1, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets
Washington, D.C.
The Task Force met, pursuant to notice, at 2:27 p.m., in
room HVC210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Anna Paulina Luna,
[Chairwoman of the Task Force] presiding.
Present: Representatives Luna, Mace, Burchett, Boebert,
Burlison, Crane, Gill, Garcia, Krishnamoorthi, Lee, Min, and
Crockett.
Also present: Representatives Ogles, Biggs, Perry, and
Moskowitz.
Mrs. Luna. The Task Force on the Declassification of
Federal Secrets will come to order.
Welcome, everyone.
I request unanimous consent that Mr. Biggs of Arizona, Mr.
Perry of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ogles of Tennessee, and Mr.
Moskowitz of Florida are permitted to participate in this
hearing for the purpose of questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Good afternoon, esteemed colleagues, distinguished guests
and fellow Americans watching today. We stand at a pivotal
moment, a juncture where history demands our unflinching
attention and our unwavering commitment to the truth.
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November
22, 1963, remains one of the most defining and haunting events
in our Nation's history.
For over six decades, questions have lingered, shrouded in
secrecy and speculation. With the recent efforts made to
declassify over 80,000 pages of classified documents, fighting
against the requests of redactions, combined with prior
releases under the previous Administration, we have an
unprecedented opportunity to peel back the layers of the dark
day and lay bare the facts for all to see for the first time in
years. We are seeing a complete cooperation between the U.S.
Government enterprise.
Today marks a historical day in our Nation's history. After
over 80,000 pages were declassified by this Administration and
previous documents declassified under previous admins were
located at the National Archives, it is time to present the
findings to the American people so that they can determine the
truth for themselves.
What has been alarming to me is the amount of stonewalling
the Federal Government put forward to hide this information
from the American people. The days of overclassification in the
name of national security is coming to an end.
The revelations emerging from these files are nothing short
of staggering discoveries that challenge the long-held
assumptions and raise profound questions about what we have
been told happened on that day.
Investigators poring over these pages have uncovered
evidence that demands our scrutiny, evidence that suggests the
official narrative may have been incomplete, at best, and, at
worst, deliberately obscured.
It has become apparent that in this investigation some
factions of the Federal Government did not want to be
transparent. This type of perspective cannot exist in a free
and fair society, and today we have called some great
witnesses. To be quite honest, we had more, but for various
reasons those individuals did not want to come forward.
I also understand the implications that this has on the
family, and it is not our objective to reopen old wounds but to
ensure that what happened to President John F. Kennedy can
never happen again in U.S. history. That can only be done if
the truth is known to the American people and the facts are
able to speak for themselves.
The courage of those who are here today, experts in their
fields, underscores the gravity of this moment. Their testimony
will help us piece together a puzzle that has been fragmented
for too long.
Let me be clear. There are sincere concerns and
discrepancies regarding the Warren Commission pushing forward a
narrative without all the facts and, according to testimony of
various witnesses, omitting evidence.
I would also further argue that the handling of this
investigation has largely contributed to the deep distrust the
American people have had with the Federal Government and
various intelligence agencies.
It is those facts that I hope to present to the American
people today. For years, we have relied on a report that, while
maybe well-intentioned, was built on a foundation of omissions
and half-truths. Now, with these newly declassified documents,
we can confront those discrepancies, whether it is
inconsistencies in witness accounts, overlooked intelligence,
or the troubling indications of interference that investigators
are just now bringing to light.
This is not about rewriting history for the sake of
sensation. It is about honoring our duty to the truth and to
the citizens we serve.
As we begin this hearing, I ask you to approach it with
open minds and steadfast resolve. The American people have
waited long enough. They deserve answers, not obstruction. They
deserve a government that trusts them with the unvarnished
reality, not one that hides behind locked vaults.
What we uncover today may unsettle us, but it will also
empower us to learn from the past, to protect our future, and
to ensure that transparency triumphs over secrecy. Let us
proceed with the seriousness this moment demands, for the sake
of justice, for the memory of President Kennedy, and for the
soul of our Republic. Thank you.
I would like to now recognize Ranking Member Garcia for the
purpose of making an opening statement.
Mr. Garcia. Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman Luna.
Before I begin, I just want to just publicly first
congratulate you on the, I think, tremendous effort, obviously,
within the Congress and your support of new parents in the
Congress. And I also want to recognize the hard work that many
folks from our caucus as well participated in. But I think that
was a very courageous step forward, so I want to just
congratulate you on your success so far. We look forward to the
days ahead there.
Now I have been asked to serve as the Ranking Democrat on
this Task Force to ensure that we remain focused on
transparency and have a focus on truth.
Now, declassification of historical documents and careful
review of the research can always provide us new and meaningful
information to the public on a variety of topics.
Now, for this hearing, I do have some broad remarks about
declassification, but I want to start with I think really
grounding us in who President Kennedy was and some facts about
the President and his legacy.
Now, we know that President Kennedy's assassination was a
defining moment in our history and a genuine trauma for
millions of Americans and people across the world. It has been,
of course, an object of interest for decades.
It is also a very human tragedy. President Kennedy was a
son, a father, a brother and a husband, and we should never
lose sight of his family and their having to revisit this
moment over and over again as, of course, it is an important
moment in American history.
And I also do not want to lose sight of President Kennedy's
legacy. President Kennedy stood proudly for American
leadership. He fought for values all over the world. In the
face of Russian threats, he told the free people of Europe that
he stood with them. And he told the world, of course, over and
over again that America would stand for peace and for justice.
And I want to read a quote that he said; he said America
would, ``pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and
success of liberty.''
We know he founded the Peace Corps, USAID, and his patience
and restraint guided the world through the Cuban missile
crisis. He reminded us that, ``civility is not a weakness and
sincerity is always subject to proof.''
Of course, he broke barriers, barriers with our Nation's
first Catholic President. And in his inaugural address, he
reminded us that we all have the power to abolish poverty as a
single important mission of the United States and the world.
He believed in service. He believed in government and that
government could achieve big things. He also, of course, fought
for everyday things that Americans carried about. He fought for
unions. He fought for Federal workers to organize. He increased
the minimum wage. And he laid the groundwork for the Civil
Rights Act and called upon Americans to address the moral
crisis of racial injustice.
President Kennedy was actually the President that coined
the phrase ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' It is a vision of
the world, of course, where we all work together to make the
country a better place for everyone.
And I do not want to lose sight of his legacy in today's
hearing, or in any future conversations about this, of course,
horrific moment in American history. His values are values that
motivate us all to this day.
Now, I also share the Chairwoman's interest in transparency
and in transparency in a variety of topics. We have worked
together on various issues that relates to UAPs, other
declassification issues. And we know that in the past, the
government has overclassified documents. We think that is a
known fact that we should all agree on. This has been a
bipartisan priority and discussion for decades.
Now, in the past we have had the House Select Committee, of
course, the JFK Records Act, and releases of records, including
the most recent, of course, tens of thousands of pages that
were recently released.
We know that today, our Federal agencies obviously have in
the past obscured information and key facts from the public for
too long. Overclassification at the expense of transparency is
something we should all take seriously but also note that it is
incredibly serious and a delicate subject.
Now, the CIA and the FBI, to be clear, particularly from
this period of time in history, were deeply flawed
institutions. And to be clear again, the CIA and the FBI
routinely overclassified documents in many instances, not just
on the subject of President Kennedy and the assassination, but
in multiple other subjects as well.
So, I think it is important that we understand that
particularly during this period of time there was an
overclassification of documents on a variety of subjects. So,
it is, of course, responsible that we stick to facts, that we
do not speculate, but certainly also allow new information to
come into this hearing and for the public.
It is important that we recognize that this process and
safeguards do exist for a reason. And I hope our witnesses
today will focus their testimony on information which is
grounded in facts, in truth, and they provide this Task Force
with more information.
I hope that we have an informative and respectful hearing,
and I yield back. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Our witnesses today are Mr. Oliver Stone. Mr. Stone is an
Academy Award winning director and has directed more than 20
feature films, including JFK in 1991.
Mr. James DiEugenio. Mr. DiEugenio is a researcher, an
expert on the assassination of former President Kennedy. He is
an accomplished author and has written numerous books regarding
the assassination of President Kennedy.
Mr. Jefferson Morley. Mr. Morley is a researcher and an
expert on the assassination of former President Kennedy. He is
currently the editor of JFK Facts.
And Mr. John Davisson. Mr. Davisson is Senior Counsel and
Director of Litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, where he works on a number of issues pertaining to data
privacy and protection.
Pursuant to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
rule 9(g), the witnesses will please stand and raise their
right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Morley. I do.
Mr. Stone. I do.
Mr. DiEugenio. I do.
Mr. Davisson. I do.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you. Let the record show that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
The Task Force certainly appreciates you for being here
today and we look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the
witnesses that we have read your written statements, and they
will appear in full in the hearing record.
Please limit your oral statements to 6 minutes. As a
reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of
you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you. When you
begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green;
after 5 minutes, the light will turn yellow; and after 6
minutes, you will get gaveled.
I now recognize Mr. Morley to give an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JEFFERSON MORLEY
INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR
Mr. Morley. Thank you to all the Task Force, the House Task
Force on Declassification. It is an honor to testify before
you. It is a solemn responsibility to report on the disturbing
new revelations that have emerged from the newest JFK files.
And it is a grave matter to assert that CIA officers were
culpable or complicit in the death of a President, so I want
fact checkers to have all the evidence that I used to support
my testimony today.
I speak with the benefit of three decades of reporting on
the JFK story. My first article on the role of the CIA in the
events that led to the assassination was published in The
Washington Post 30 years ago this week.
As I pursued this story, I practiced the tried-and-true
techniques that I learned at The Post. Knock on doors. Get two
sources. Follow the money. Start with the coverup and proceed
to the crime. And always ask the question: what did they know
and when did they know it?
I did not start with a conspiracy theory, and I did not go
looking for a smoking gun. I started with an open mind and
looked for a fact pattern. As I interviewed and reported and
researched on this story and the role of the CIA, I
consistently avoided judgment on who was responsible,
individually or institutionally.
My research and reporting simply did not give me a clear
answer to the question: who killed JFK? What was clear over
time is a new fact pattern. In the spring of 2023, the CIA
fully declassified for the first time its pre-assassination
file on Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin, who denied
killing the President and was killed himself in police custody
before he could defend himself.
I have a copy here of the CIA's pre-assassination file on
Lee Harvey Oswald, and I am submitting it for the record. The
declassified Oswald file runs to, and fact checkers can confirm
this, 198 pages.
Mr. Morley. In the fall of 1963, in November 1963, this
file was held in the office of James Angleton,
Counterintelligence Chief at CIA Headquarters in Langley,
Virginia, not five miles from the White House where President
Kennedy lived and worked.
To be sure, the declassified Oswald file is not a smoking
gun. I showed it to journalists whose judgment I trust, and
they shrugged. They said, this is evidence of incompetence,
CYA, they said, cover your ass.
I did not quite believe that, but I could not prove them
wrong until March 18. That was the day that the National
Archives began posting long secret JFK assassination records
that had been withheld from public view for decades.
I started by looking at nine declassified documents about
Mr. Angleton. He was the man who compiled the Oswald file. And
when I came to a long secret transcript of Angleton's testimony
to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, my
reservations about passing judgment on the responsibility
vanished.
One newly declassified passage showed that Angleton had
lied under oath about his surveillance of Oswald's
correspondence while he lived in the Soviet Union from 1959 to
1962. And that, for me, was a tipping point.
The transcript, which the CIA withheld from public view for
half a century, confirmed a disturbing fact: James Angleton is
the third senior CIA officer known to have lied under oath
about what they knew about the alleged assassin, Oswald, before
JFK was killed.
The first was Deputy Director Richard Helms. He lied to the
Warren Commission in May 1964, when he said under oath the CIA
had only, quote, ``minimal information about Oswald before JFK
was killed.'' A hundred and ninety-eight pages of information
cannot be truthfully described as minimal.
The second CIA officer who lied was George Joannides, chief
of the Covert Action Branch of the Miami Station in 1963. His
agents in the Top Secret AMSPELL program generated propaganda
about Oswald's pro-Castro activities both before and after the
President was killed. Fifteen years later, in 1978, the CIA
inserted Joannides into the House JFK investigation, and he
blocked any investigation of contacts between Oswald and his
AMSPELL agents. Obstructing Congress cannot be considered
evidence of incompetence.
And this is what I believe, in summary: one false statement
might be incompetence. A second false statement might be CYA
for the first false statement. But three false statements by
top CIA officers about Kennedy's accused killer, that is a
pattern. It is a pattern of misconduct. It is a pattern of
malfeasance.
If three police officers lie about their knowledge of a
homicide defendant, that cannot be considered exculpatory
evidence. To the contrary, it shows guilty knowledge and
criminal culpability. It is, in a word, incriminating.
The new fact pattern leads to a new conclusion. We know now
what they knew about Oswald and when they knew it. We know now
that Richard Helms, James Angleton, and George Joannides were
responsible for, or complicit in, the death of the President,
either by criminal negligence or covert action.
My recommendations to the Task Force are: one, secure and
release the personnel file of George Joannides; and two, ask
the CIA to provide a public statement answering the question,
why did these three men lie to JFK investigators? The answers
will help fulfill the Task Force goal, the President's goal,
and the people's goal of full and complete JFK disclosure.
Thank you.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Mr. Stone for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF OLIVER STONE
AMERICAN FILMMAKER
Mr. Stone. Thank you, Chairwoman Luna.
It is a pleasure to be here. You know, I was here 33 years
ago. I was sitting in one of these rooms in Washington, and I
told the Congressmen and women about this movie I just made:
``JFK''. And half of them were wondering what all the fuss was
about. It was just a movie. And the other half were passionate
in responding to the cries of their constituents that demanded,
no more national security reasons preventing this from getting
to clarity on our President's assassination.
The Warren Commission of 1964, as it turned out, got us to
second base, with a lot of unknowns--and ``what was that''
obfuscations. And it all got crazier and crazier, sides taken
on this, and on that, and what happened that awful day. It was
not clear as to who the heck did this, killed the President at
high noon in Dealey Plaza in Dallas on November 22.
And then year by grudging year, we learned increments, a
little but not much more, often one step forward and two steps
back. And now, it is 2025, 58 years since Jack Kennedy was
killed in 1963. Repeat, almost 60 years. That is about two
generations, let us say from 1900 to 1960.
As a result of the 1992 hearings that resulted from my film
in which I participated, Congress passed the JFK Records Act,
which firmly said all the records out unless you have a strong
reason to protest our national security. All the reasons, all
the records out, which is exactly what this case was, a
national security matter. Our President was killed. What is
more important than that?
Well, the Assassination Records Review Board really tried
for about--for a few years, until 1998, to get those records
out, but they did not get any cooperation, although mandated by
law, from the Central Intelligence Agency, which operated and
still operates as a taxpayer-funded intelligence agency that
arrogantly considers itself outside our laws.
They say things like, we will get back to you on that, and
they never do. Or they give me a day and I will come up with a
reason why this matter is a national security matter, et
cetera, et cetera.
Nothing, nothing of importance has been revealed by the CIA
in all these years, although we know from other records that
there are illegal criminal activities in every facet of our
foreign policy in practically every country on earth. Just to
begin, Cuba, Vietnam, Indonesia, Egypt, South America, the
Middle East.
We could write a whole separate history of our country from
the viewpoint of the countries, yet we do not know and are not
allowed to know anything about the CIA's true history of the
United States, which is almost, I believe, the real story.
There are many people, some in this room today, who do care
and remember the details and the clues. There are real people
alive with the integrity of a true detective, like that of the
fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, willing year by year to
track this cold, cold case to not so much prove it or debunk
it, but essentially to know if this so-called democracy of ours
has a foundation or a future, a meaning or a purpose for our
country to mean something more than its wealth or its military
might.
To the people here and all over the world who loved
President John Kennedy, who know he really wanted peace in our
time--and, by that, he said clearly in one of his greatest
speeches, not a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of
war, but a genuine peace, a peace he described so beautifully
that we could all share in, because we all live on this planet.
We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's
futures, and we are all mortal.
Can we return to a world where we can trust our government
to level with us, the people for which this government exists.
And if some people in power betrayed our Constitution and chose
the path of war over peace, let them--let the rest of us see
past the lies and let us hear what we think happened.
And with that knowledge, let us forgive, but not forget,
the transgressions. And let us praise the Representatives,
Democrat and Republican, who believe, with the vast majority of
the American people, that the truth is the greatest treasure a
Socratic soul can attain in this lifetime.
I ask the Committee to reopen what the Warren Commission
failed miserably to complete. I ask you in good faith, outside
all political considerations, to reinvestigate the
assassination of this President Kennedy from the scene of the
crime to the courtroom, which means--whichever it happened, but
which means the chain of custody on the rifle, the bullets, the
fingerprints, the autopsy that defies belief, and that if it
were a murder, we would have given to the poorest man dying in
a gutter.
Let us reinvestigate the fingerprints of intelligence all
over Lee Harvey Oswald from 1959 to his violent death in 1963,
and most importantly, this CIA, whose muddy footprints are all
over this case, a true interrogation.
James Angleton, before he died, who was one of the original
members of the CIA, was talking about Dulles and Helms and the
others, what he called the grand masters. And he is a Catholic.
Angleton was a Catholic in search perhaps of repentance before
his death. He did say, quote, ``If you were in a room with
them, you are in a room full of people that you had to believe
would deservedly end up in hell. I guess I will see them
soon.''
This is our democracy. This is our Presidency. It belongs
to us. Treat us with respect. Thank you.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Mr. Stone.
I now recognize Mr. DiEugenio for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JAMES DIEUGENIO
RESEARCHER AND AUTHOR
Mr. DiEugenio. Thank you. And thanks for having this
hearing. I think it is an important subject and I spent about
32 years----
Mrs. Luna. Sir, please turn on your microphone. Thank you.
Mr. DiEugenio. Do I have to hit this?
Mrs. Luna. Yes, sir, the big red button.
Mr. DiEugenio. Is that better? OK, good.
Why are we here? Why are we dealing with this subject that
occurred over 60 years ago? Well, the JFK case is one that
simply will not go away, no matter how much the MSM tries to
minimize it or make it disappear.
Sixty-five percent of the public does not buy the Warren
Commission verdict of Oswald as a lone assassin, but even more
startling--and this is very important, I think it speaks to the
point that Mr. Garcia was talking about--over 90 percent of the
public believes that something monumental happened after the
Kennedy assassination, that the United States went from a
country that was bathed in triumph and optimism after World War
II to one that was now covered with cynicism and skepticism.
All right?
So, as you can see, me, Oliver and Jeff are not alone in
those feelings. All right? Now, what is the immediate reason
why we are here today is, well, according to a congressional
statute, we should not be here--and I am sure you are aware of
this--because the JFK Records Collection Act said that in
October 2017, everything on the Kennedy case should be
declassified no matter what. And President Trump actually
talked about this about a week and a half before it was
supposed to be done, and he said he was looking forward to
doing this. And by the way, if you know the statute, he was the
only one who could stop it from happening.
So, on the day this was supposed to occur, he was visited
by some higherups in the Intel Community, and under their, I
believe unwise advice, he reversed what he had said. He did
declassify some documents, but not all.
But before anybody jumps on me, I do not want to say that
this is a partisan issue, because President Biden was pretty
much the same thing, all right? And some would say, like my
friend, Andrew Iler here, that he might have been even worse on
this subject.
Now, during the last Presidential campaign, Candidate Trump
was reminded of this reversal. It was not by the MSM, of
course. It was by two independent broadcasters, Joe Rogan and
Andrew Napolitano. And I think this was the impetus for him to
sign the executive order which he did. And, to his credit, he
added the much-ignored King case and the RFK case.
Now, this Committee has decided to back that Executive
Order up, which I think is salutary. So, hopefully, we will now
see the final documents on the JFK released over 60 years after
his assassination, and hopefully, the beginning of an
excavation on the RFK and the MLK cases.
It is a cliche but it is true, secrecy is the enemy of
democracy. It is the enemy of the republican form of
government. And a misinformed or uninformed public cannot make
good decisions, and a compliant press helps cushion the public
from that fact. And this process leads to a loss of belief in
both the government and the media.
And you can examine every poll out there, OK, and they will
tell you that. When President Kennedy took office, 75 percent
of the public believed in what the government was saying. By
the nineties, it was down to 19 percent. All right? The
biggest--the biggest year drop was the year the Warren
Commission was issued. All right?
Now, from the beginning, the FBI and the CIA, as these two
gentlemen have mentioned, have refused to divulge all the
information they have had about the murder of President
Kennedy.
And I want to give a popular example which I am sure
everybody here is familiar with. I am sure you are all familiar
because it actually made it into the MSM about the Schlesinger
memo. This was the memo written by Arthur Schlesinger, at JFK's
request, to do a topdown reorganization of the CIA, because he
believed that he was deceived and lied to about the Bay of Pigs
Invasion. All right?
Now, I am sure you also know that that was censored, about
two of the most important pages were censored by the CIA, OK?
These dealt with a very important subject, which is the control
the State Department by the Central Intelligence Agency, that
many of these State Department employees overseas are not
really State Department employees. They are really CIA guys
undercover.
And Schlesinger cited the Paris office, all right, which is
very important, because these guys are trying to overthrow De
Gaulle at the time. And JFK gets on the phone with the
Ambassador and says, ``Look, I do not know what these guys are
doing half the time. OK? So, I do not even know if we are
involved with this covertly or not. All right?'' And he was
trying--and Schlesinger's memo was trying to get control of
that.
Now, my friend Andrew gave me--it is bad enough that the
two pages were cut, but the CIA version of the Schlesinger
memo--and you should all know this--the CIA version of the
Schlesinger memo cut it by 60 percent. All right? And of the
remaining pages, about 40 percent of those pages were totally
redacted.
And this is what I mean. How can you be an informed person
when you do not even know this stuff, you know, when you have a
first gatekeeper, in this case the Central Intelligence Agency,
keeping you from the wishes of what JFK and Arthur Schlesinger
were trying to do. All right?
All right. Now, any attorney, which I am sure we have some
here, and any investigator will tell you that you cannot
conduct a full investigation unless you have the whole case
file. Well, here we are in 2025 still looking for the end of
that case file, you know, on the JFK case.
Now, let me relate in closing two episodes from the last
attempt of getting all these documents out there, which is,
which I am sure you are familiar with, the ARRB, the
Assassination Records and Review Board, which my friend here
said lasted from 1994 to 1998.
When the board had its first meeting with the CIA, they
flashed a memo on the wall and they said, ``We are going to
declassify this unless you have a humdinger of an excuse. All
right?'' And the CIA liaison said, ``Well, I do not have
anything right now, but give me a couple minutes and I will
think of something.'' This is what these guys have gotten away
with. This is what they are used to.
Now, when the FBI came in for their first meeting, the
Review Board did the same thing. You know, unless you give us a
great excuse, we are going to declassify this document. The CIA
liaison came in with--excuse me--the FBI liaison came in with a
lawyer. The FBI liaison was so shocked, he turned to the lawyer
and said: can they really do that? And the lawyer said: yes,
they can. All right?
So, this is the kind of arrogance that you are going to be
dealing with. All right? So, I really hope that people will
learn from the past, learn from these experiences. You got a
difficult road ahead of yourselves, and I congratulate you on
trying to change things. The FBI and the CIA should not have
the last word on JFK's murder. You should.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, sir.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Davisson for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DAVISSON
SENIOR COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER
Mr. Davisson. Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Garcia, and
Members of the Task Force, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about the privacy, transparency, and
accountability issues raised by the recent release of documents
from the President Kennedy Assassination Records Collection.
My name is John Davisson. I am the Director of Litigation
and Senior Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, or EPIC. EPIC is an independent nonprofit research
organization established in 1994 to protect privacy, freedom of
expression, and democratic values in the information age.
As this Task Force knows well, the assassination of
President Kennedy was an event of surpassing historical and
political significance, one that has engendered more than 60
years of investigation, analysis, and debate.
Today's hearing highlights the critical role that open
government laws and, in particular, the JFK Records Act have
played in informing that discourse. As the Supreme Court has
written, open government laws are one of the key mechanisms for
holding the Governors accountable to the governed. With that in
mind, Congress has rightly established a robust array of public
disclosure requirements for Federal entities, including the
Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
and the JFK Records Act.
Having spent decades to secure the transparency of
government records, EPIC firmly supports the objectives of the
JFK Records Act and the fulfillment of its disclosure mandate.
But given that many Federal records contain sensitive personal
information, Congress has also made it clear that government
transparency must be balanced with the protection of privacy.
Disclosing personal information is inherently invasive and
can expose individuals to a broad spectrum of secondary harms,
including identity theft, fraud, reputational harm,
psychological harm, stalking, harassment, doxing, and
vigilantism.
Accordingly, the FOIA, the FACA, and the JFK Records Act
all establish that the disclosure of records is not required to
the extent that such dissemination would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Together with the Privacy Act, these provisions ensure, in
principle, that the Federal Government only disseminates
personal information to the extent that the public interest in
disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the individual to
whom the information pertains.
To fulfill this dual mandate of transparency and privacy
protection, Federal agencies consistently conduct a detailed
review of documents prior to release, redacting personal
information or sometimes withholding records in full where
disclosure would cause unwarranted privacy harm.
For example, when processing FOIA requests, the National
Archives is ordinarily careful to withhold records about a
living individual that, if released, would cause a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the past, NARA has also conducted extensive reviews of
documents subject to the JFK Records Act, to identify and
request the withholding of any Social Security numbers or
financial information of living persons.
By all appearances, these procedures and safeguards were
completely bypassed in last month's hurried release of 60,000
pages from the JFK Records Collection, which led to the public
disclosure of Social Security numbers and other private
information of more than 400 former congressional staffers and
other former officials, some of them still living.
This shocking violation of privacy has compounded a
national trauma and distracted from Congress' stated goal of
informing the public through the JFK Records Act. Security
experts as well as those directly harmed by the breach have
deemed it outrageous, sloppy, unprofessional, astonishing,
foolish, incompetent, egregious, almost criminal and the breach
of a first-grade elementary level rule of security.
NARA has reportedly begun to reach out to individuals
affected by the breach, and the White House has promised free
credit monitoring services and new Social Security numbers to
those affected. But these steps are too little too late. The
bell cannot be unrung.
There are several lessons to draw from this episode: First,
Congress has mandated that agencies take steps to prevent
unwarranted invasions of privacy resulting from records
disclosures for good reason. This incident illustrates why
those procedures must be followed even when logistically or
politically inconvenient. Congress should explore updates to
the FOIA, the Privacy Act, and other Federal records statutes
to ensure that such procedures are both readily enforceable and
followed without exception.
Second, while prompt disclosure of public records is
essential, fire drills that make it impossible to ensure the
redaction of sensitive personal information are a threat to
privacy and to the public. Although it is difficult to see how
any agency could have completed an ongoing review of 60,000
pages within the 24 hours abruptly allotted, this incident
serves as a reminder of the need to adequately fund public
records offices throughout the Federal Government to ensure
that they can carry out their weighty and growing
responsibilities in a timely fashion.
Third, this breach, while deeply serious, is a drop in the
bucket compared to the wrongful disclosure of personal
information now occurring within and between Federal agencies.
Failing to rein in the ongoing governmentwide misuse of systems
of records by largely unaccountable actors risks far more
dangerous consequences.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, sir.
I now recognize myself for some questions.
Mr. Morley, why do you say that the Oswald file was sitting
on the desk of James Angleton a week before the assassination?
Can you really prove that?
Mr. Morley. Yes, I can. In the Oswald file, on page 254 and
on page 275, you will see a routing slip on two FBI reports
about Oswald. And on November 15, 1963, and November 14, 1963,
you will see the initials JAR on the routing slip.
That stands for Jane Atherton Roman. She was the liaison
officer for Mr. Angleton. So, when she signed for those two FBI
reports, we have proof positive that they were on Mr.
Angleton's desk.
Mrs. Luna. Are you saying that the three men, Angleton,
Helms, and Joannides, plotted to kill the President?
Mr. Morley. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that they
were engaged in covert activities related to Lee Harvey Oswald
that have never been disclosed. And that is the imperative for
the Task Force, to obtain those records of that secret
operation.
Mrs. Luna. Real quick, I would like to enter into the
record a document that was actually one of these declassified
documents of the CIA rejecting the lone gunman theory.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Luna. Mr. Morley, who was George Joannides and why do
you emphasize the importance of getting this file?
Mr. Morley. George Joannides was a career CIA officer. In
1963, he was Chief of the Covert Action Branch of the Miami
Station. His agents had contact with Oswald before the
assassination. His agents in the Top-Secret program AMSPELL
generated propaganda about Oswald's pro-Castro activities both
before and after the assassination.
When Mr. Joannides was questioned by congressional
investigators here on Capitol Hill in 1978, he was asked: who
was running these Cuban students who had all this contact with
Oswald? The investigators had no idea that they were looking at
the answer to their question.
And Mr. Joannides, who had been running that Cuban student
group, told congressional investigator:, I do not know, I will
get back to you. That was obstruction of Congress. That was an
obstruction of an investigation of the President's
assassination. His records have never been fully released by
the Central Intelligence Agency, and they obviously should be.
Mrs. Luna. Mr. Morley, you actually had written an article
specifically addressing a whistleblower that had reports at the
CIA potentially showing information that Oswald was in Mexico
City. Can you speak more to that?
Mr. Morley. I was approached a few years ago by a man who
had worked inside the CIA who had a very high security
clearance. And in 2018, he came to me and said he was concerned
that there was a JFK assassination document that he had read
while he was working at the CIA, and he was afraid that it
would never become public.
The man was taking considerable legal risk by talking to
me. This was--he was talking about classified or potentially
classified information--so, I published his story last year
without his name, which is not something I usually do. I do not
like stories with anonymous sources, but I felt that it was
important to get out. And he felt it was important too.
I have spoken with him, and he says he is willing to come
public and tell his name under his own story with assurances
that he will not face legal retaliation. I hope that is
something that can be arranged in the near future.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you.
Mr. Stone, if you could, for a moment, you had mentioned
earlier about some anomalies in the autopsy. Would you be able
to speak to that? I have about a minute and 19 left.
Mr. Stone. One of the things that we did in our
documentary, JFK Revisited, in 2021 was show as much as we
could about the autopsy, including the fact that there are 40
living, 40 people still alive as far as I know, who witnessed
at Parkland and at Bethesda a large gaping wound in the back of
President Kennedy's right head, indicating a shot from the
front that blew out the rear of his--and they all point--if you
look, there is a picture. They all point to the same place on
camera right here in the back of his head. That is one very
disturbing point.
Additionally, there are a lot of inconsistencies in what
was seen and done. The tracking of the bullet, the concept of a
magic bullet, which deserves a lot of--deserves your
reexamination. And I think Jim is more expert in this than I. I
can point to him as my researcher.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you. I am sure that will be in the next
line of questioning.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you again to our witnesses for all of your testimony.
I just want to run through a few questions that might bring
some clarity on some of the opening statements.
And I do want to just recognize also and restate the
concerns that we should all have about overclassification over
the last few decades, especially when it came to the CIA and
the FBI.
Mr. Morley, I know you did not say this explicitly in your
testimony. I just want to clarify. I think it is good for the
record.
Now, we know that your research, of course, is very focused
on what the U.S. Government knew about Lee Harvey Oswald. I
think you made that also very clear. You believe Lee Harvey
Oswald fired the shots who killed President Kennedy. Is that
correct, sir?
Mr. Morley. He was not solely responsible for the
President's death.
Mr. Garcia. Microphone.
Mr. Morley. No, I do not believe that President--Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. I do not think the evidence
supports that.
Mr. Garcia. You do not think the evidence supports he fired
the shots?
Mr. Morley. He might have fired a gun. He was not the
intellectual author of the President's death.
Mr. Garcia. I wanted to clarify, because I think the firing
of the shots, I just wanted to clarify that you do believe that
he fired the shots?
Mr. Morley. No, I do not. That is not--that has not been
determined by the evidence.
Mr. Garcia. OK. I wanted just to get you to clarify that.
Now, I want to also just say a few points. Mr. Morley, you
have said that the CIA was not forthcoming with Congress in
past investigations, correct, sir?
Mr. Morley. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. I know you have said that you also--you have
said that CIA counterintelligence also either knew information
or could have been responsible in some sort of broader plot. Is
that correct, sir?
Mr. Morley. Correct.
Mr. Garcia. OK. But you have said, I think just to correct
it you have said, though, that there is no direct evidence as
of today that the CIA committed the assassination. Is that
correct?
Mr. Morley. I would say that the fact pattern that has
emerged in the last month shows culpability or complicity in
the President's death.
Mr. Garcia. But no direct evidence. Is that correct, sir?
Mr. Morley. We have very direct evidence of the CIA's
surveillance of Oswald.
Mr. Garcia. No, I am not asking about that. I agree with
you, sir. I mean direct evidence that the CIA is connected to
the assassination?
Mr. Morley. All of these events connect the CIA to the
assassination.
Mr. Garcia. I understand that, sir. I am just telling you
my interpretation----
Mr. Morley. OK.
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Of what has been presented is I
have not seen direct evidence. I am not saying, by the way,
that there have not been--that the CIA or the FBI have not been
involved in a variety of covering up information in the past.
We know that to be true. But I just want to make sure that I am
very clear that I have not seen direct evidence yet.
Mr. Morley. OK.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I want to just recognize again the
overclassification issue is an issue, and I appreciate that
clarification.
I also think it is important that we are very clear with
the public that we should be, no one should be defending the
CIA or the FBI, particularly from this period of time. I think
they were involved in very questionable practices, not just on
this issue, but on a variety of issues. So, I understand that.
I want to also, just so that I note that we should follow, of
course, the facts wherever they go.
Mr. Morley, in the runup to this hearing, I know that there
was some public reporting about this video that has been
referenced, this never before seen video of the shooting.
Now, that video itself is not a secret. I mean, JFK
researchers have known about this video for a few years. Is
that correct?
Mr. Morley. For decades, yes.
Mr. Garcia. OK. And the film is not definitive about
Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the incident.
Mr. Morley. No, it is not.
Mr. Garcia. OK. And it is not regarded as overly important
by serious JFK researchers. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Morley. Correct.
Mr. Garcia. OK. And it had never been a factor in major
analysis in the causes of JFK's assassination. Is that also
correct?
Mr. Morley. Not in mine and not in any of the researchers I
work with.
Mr. Garcia. OK, thank you. And I think it is important to
clarify that, because I think there is a lot of speculation
and----
Mr. Morley. Yes.
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Interest in the video, but I think
we need to be very clear about what the video actually is.
Also, I know as it relates to the rollout of the JFK files,
it also included a lot of, I think, personal information.
And, Mr. Davisson, I just want to turn to you for a minute.
One of my concerns, of course, has been that a lot of personal
information was actually released and has actually caused harm
to certain folks.
Can you just kind of speak to some of the concerns about
the way that was released? That would be helpful.
Mr. Davisson. Sure. So, the National Archives was aware, as
was the National Security Council, from public reporting, that
these records contained a substantial amount of personal
information, including Social Security numbers, which are
consistently redacted in public records requests and in prior
disclosures under the JFK Records Act, and proceeded to
complete this rollout with the sort of abrupt 24 hour deadline
at the end without taking the steps that are ordinarily taken
to redact that information and to ensure that privacy is
protected.
And as I indicated in my initial statement, there is a
whole host of harms that can come from that. Obviously, it is
deeply inconvenient for your Social Security number to be
published. It is--you know, the White House has said they will
issue new Social Security numbers, but there is a lot of harm
that can happen in the meantime and updating that information
for an individual is tremendously----
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. My time is concluded.
So, I just want to add to that point that as we declassify
and work with the Archives and others, we have got to make sure
that people's personal information, of course, is not being
used in a way that is negative and can dox their family. So,
thank you.
Ms. Mace. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
And I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
First of all, I want to say thank you to all of our
witnesses who are here today.
I also believe I want to say that the American people
deserve transparency, not just on JFK files, MLK, Epstein list,
all the things.
I also want to say I am grateful to President Trump for
keeping good on his promise for transparency. This is a man who
literally also took a bullet for his country.
And I agree with you, Mr. Stone, on your testimony in your
opening statement. Giving our country, giving our democracy
meaning and a purpose for a Nation, and that to me personally
means getting to the bottom of the truth, getting the truth out
of whatever three letter agency is hiding information, whether
it is from Congress, whether it is from the American people,
but sunshine literally is the best medicine.
And we have just seen over the last few years, regardless
of your politics, but we saw 51 intelligence leaders sign a
letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop was fake. It turns out
that was a coverup. We saw a Presidential candidate Donald
Trump spied on by the political opposition. We saw Biden's
healthcare, his health: the previous Administration lied to the
American people about the President's health. They called his
falling down cheap fakes.
We saw the origins of COVID covered up by our government.
We saw documents after documents, you know, like, you know,
hidden from the American people.
Donald Trump was treated differently when they found
documents at Mara Lago versus the way Joe Biden was treated
when they found documents in his garage. The government tried
to cover it up, tried to cover from him.
We were lied to about drones just in the last few months.
And so, when we talk about this, the Deep State, not only
was it around during JFK's assassination, but it is here today.
It is right before our eyes. And they are doing this in real
time with regards to the Epstein list, which the government
still has not released today, and the American people deserve
to know who rich and powerful is on that list and who the
government is covering up for. So, for decades, we have seen
this happen, and I will get to a few questions.
Mr. Morley, I want to start with you first. You said,
according to your testimony, in asking, what did the CIA know
and when did they know it? What do you think that is? What is
the answer to that question?
Mr. Morley. I want to preface my remarks by saying I am a
liberal Democrat, and I do not shy away from that. That is part
of my reporting and that is part of my reputation for straight
shooting.
What did the President, what did the CIA know about Lee
Harvey Oswald, and when did they know it? A whole lot. One
hundred and ninety-eight pages' worth of information were on
the CIA's desk when President Kennedy left for Dallas. So, that
foundational fact should guide us in understanding what
happened.
Ms. Mace. So, who do you think fired the shot?
Mr. Morley. I do not know.
Ms. Mace. You do not know, but you do not believe it was
Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. Morley. Oswald was not the intellectual author of
Kennedy's death, even if he fired a gun that day.
Ms. Mace. Who do you think was the intellectual author of
Kennedy's death?
Mr. Morley. Kennedy's enemies high in his own government is
as specific as I can be, based on the available evidence.
Probably CIA and Pentagon.
Ms. Mace. How long had the CIA been surveying Lee Harvey
Oswald before the assassination attempt?
Mr. Morley. Four years.
Ms. Mace. Four years. And what are some of the highlights
of the CIA's pre-assassination file on Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. Morley. They started reading his mail in November 9,
1959, and they intercepted a number of letters between him and
his mother. Those letters were forwarded to James Angleton in
the summer of 1962.
In the summer of 1963, Oswald attempted to infiltrate the
CIA's favorite Cubans in New Orleans. He was arrested. The FBI
sent reports on Oswald's arrest to Angleton's staff. They knew
that he had attempted to infiltrate a CIA funded group, that he
had been arrested. And then they learned that he had attempted
to travel to Cuba, a violation of U.S. law at the time. And he
had made contact with a KGB officer in Mexico City.
Ms. Mace. OK. Mr. Morley, did the CIA or FBI have
intelligence prior to the assassination of President Kennedy
that Lee Harvey Oswald intended to kill him?
Mr. Morley. No.
Ms. Mace. The FBI did not either?
Mr. Morley. No.
Ms. Mace. No one did?
And then how do we--Mr. Davisson, how do we make sure the
government is more transparent with Congress? You have 20
seconds. Good luck.
Mr. Davisson. I think in general, the most important thing
is to provide the resources to agencies to process public
records request or requests from Congress so that this
information can actually be reviewed and disclosed in a timely
fashion.
Whether you are concerned about the truth of the statements
that you raised at the top of your presentation, or if,
perhaps, you want to understand more about the Trump
Administration's hateful campaign against trans individuals,
either way, you would require more resources for public records
disclosure and requests.
Ms. Mace. OK. And just for clarification, Mr. Morley, this
is about as nonpartisan as this Committee gets, so good job.
Thank you. I will now recognize Congressman Krishnamoorthi
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
President Kennedy's grandson, Jack Schlossberg, said,
conspiracies surrounding JFK's death have shifted focus away
from the important lessons of his life and the critical issues
of the moment. So, I would like to focus a little bit on some
of those lessons and issues.
Mr. DiEugenio, it is the start of baseball season. Go Cubs.
So, let us begin with JFK's 1960 letter to Jackie Robinson, in
which JFK highlighted Robinson's role in the civil rights
struggle. JFK said, quote, ``I believe I understand and
appreciate your role in continuing the struggle to fulfill
America's promise of equal opportunity for all.''
Just last month, President Trump bizarrely ordered DOD to
purge its website of all references to Black history, Black
veterans, and even the reference to Jackie Robinson's own
military service.
In response, Mr. DiEugenio, you posted that what Trump did
was, quote, ``really sick.'' That's what you said and that is
what you believe, right, sir? Yes?
Mr. DiEugenio. Did I say that?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes, you did.
Mr. DiEugenio. OK. I am sorry. I do not recall saying that.
OK. Maybe I did. Maybe I did not. OK. I wish you would have
given it to me before so I could have looked at it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Morley, you said that JFK, quote,
``took great risks on behalf of all Americans in resisting the
forces of militarism and racism.''
Mr. Morley. Yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Donald Trump, on the other hand,
recently eliminated, believe it or not, the prohibition on
Federal contractors using or maintaining racially segregated
facilities. JFK would have rejected what Trump recently did,
correct?
Mr. Morley. You know, I was invited here to talk about the
JFK files, and I do not want to make a partisan political issue
of it.
Like I said, I am a liberal Democrat and if, in general, I
had to choose between a conservative Republican like Donald
Trump and a liberal Democrat like JFK, I would choose JFK.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, let me talk about USAID for a
second, because that was something that JFK actually
established.
Sir, recently--USAID is now being shuttered. Again, that is
something that is a very important part of his legacy. And that
is something that he would have opposed, obviously, correct?
Mr. Morley. I think President Kennedy would have said that
no government agency is sacrosanct, and I am sure he would have
said that any Federal agency that should be abolished should be
done in consultation between the President and Congress.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And that has not been done here, yes,
sir?
Mr. Morley. Not that I know of.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let me turn to another topic.
Mr. Stone, some of your films, such as ``Platoon'' and
``Born on the Fourth of July,'' were inspired by your own
military experiences in the Army when you deployed to Vietnam
in the 1960s, right?
Mr. Stone. That is correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. We have this picture here of you in
Vietnam.
Mr. Stone. Thank you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I thank you deeply for your service. We
actually found a picture of you in Vietnam, and you were
awarded the Bronze Star for valor, correct?
Mr. Stone. That is correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You have written that your Bronze Star
was because of your actions during a, quote, ``mean little
ambush'' which had cost you a lieutenant, a sergeant, and even
your scout dog, correct?
Mr. Stone. I am sorry. I did not hear that. What was he
saying?
Mr. Morley. He said, did it cost you a lieutenant and your
scout dog, being ambushed.
Mr. Stone. No, that is another incident, sir. That was
later on in another infantry unit. That was the reason that led
to my Bronze Star. The Bronze Star came in August of that year.
This wound occurred in October '67.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Can I ask you about that? It is
ambushes like this where sometimes people are waiting
opportunistically to fire upon you, but sometimes they have
some type of information that allows them to lie in wait for a
surprise attack. And part of that information could be your
whereabouts or the timing of your arrival, correct?
Mr. Stone. You are talking about friendly fire or fragging?
Is this what you are----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Ambush from the enemy.
Mr. Stone. Ambushed--to be ambushed by your own man, your
own troops? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Ambushed by the enemy, the adversary.
Mr. Stone. The adversary. Well, I am a little confused, but
I just want to make the point that, yes, there was a tremendous
amount of friendly fire casualties in Vietnam, and there is in
any war, I believe. In my experience, 10 percent does not even
describe it. I think it is closer to 15 or 20 percent in terms
of friendly fire deaths and wounds.
Mrs. Luna. Yes. Mr. Stone, we would like to thank you for
your service to this country. You are a----
Mr. Stone. Thank you.
Mrs. Luna [continuing]. War hero. You have a Bronze Star
and a Purple Heart. And I think----
Mr. Stone. Thank you.
Mrs. Luna [continuing]. This Committee reflects that. Thank
you.
The Chair would like to now recognize Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady.
For over 50 years, the assassination of President Kennedy
has been shrouded in secrecy and corruption. The American
people have been lied to repeatedly by this Federal Government.
President Trump's executive orders to declassify the
critical documents, I think, is a step in the right direction,
but Congress must ensure that the bureaucrats in Washington,
DC, do not get away with what they have done, and they do not
get in the way of transparency.
Mr. Stone, I know you have talked about chain of custody,
and I would like to hear your thoughts on some of the NBC
videos. And I know that, since you have already talked about
your service to our great country, from 1967 to 1968, you were
twice wounded in action, you received a Bronze Star, a Purple
Heart, an Air Medal, and the Combat Infantry Badge. And we
salute you for your service, sir.
Today is the 80th anniversary of the invasion of Okinawa.
And that is an island my dad was on. And he told me, he said
the Purple Heart was the one medal he was glad he never got.
Mr. Stone, I am going to ask for the indulgence of the
Chairlady and the Members, if I could just yield my time to you
for you to discuss anything you would like to pertaining to
this subject and to ask any of the other men up here on the
dais with you any questions you would like.
Mr. Stone. Well, I would like to point out that, in our
film ``JFK Revisited,'' 2021, which is an important--I hope
Members of the Committee have a chance to look at it, because
it is a follow-up to the original film, and it is a documentary
made with Mr. DiEugenio as a writer, in which we take the
evidence from the ARRB and we examine as much of it as we can.
Included in that is the concept of chain of custody. We
interviewed Henry Lee, who is one of the country's leading--
what would you call him?
Mr. DiEugenio. He is the leading criminalist in America.
Mr. Stone. OK. Criminalist, whatever that--OK.
He was saying to us repeatedly--and he is on camera--a
chain of custody has to go from the scene of the crime to the
courtroom. Otherwise, you cannot bring the charge on Oswald or
anybody.
Well, that does not exist in this case. We went through
this in the documentary. The rifle itself is not the one that
is described in the film. It was shown of a man, a detective,
walking out with a rifle and his arms raised. That rifle does
not resemble the one that was bought by Oswald, out of the
Chicago--supposedly bought by Oswald Hidell was his name.
Mr. Burchett. Right. The one held up was a Mauser, and the
one he allegedly shot him with was a Mannlicher Italian----
Mr. DiEugenio. No. The difference is that the one in
evidence is longer. It is about four inches longer. It has a
sling to it, and it has a screw in the butt of the rifle,
which--I consulted with some rifle experts, and they said,
Oswald could not have done that by himself, all right?
So, those are the differences between the one that the
Warren Commission says Oswald actually purchased versus the one
that they put into evidence.
Mr. Stone. No rifle and no bullets, I said. Now, the
bullets is even more ridiculous. As you know, there has been a
long amount of controversy about CE 399, the so-called magic
bullet, which came out apparently undamaged after wounding
seven or eight wounds.
We do not have a chain of custody proving that those
bullets were ever used. So, those are not, they do not match
the ones at the sixth floor that were--see pictured.
Mr. Burchett. And that was the bullet that was found on the
gurney, correct, beside one of the bodies?
Mr. DiEugenio. Yes, sir, except we do not know which gurney
it was found on, OK? And then if you go to the chain of custody
from--well, let me use this as an example.
According to the evidence, all right, that bullet was
turned over to the FBI at 9:20 that night, OK? Well, here is
the problem. Frazier, who was the FBI ballistics expert, had
the bullet at 7:35. How on Earth can you have a bullet that has
not been delivered into the White House, because that was where
the exchange took place?
So, that is one of the big problems. And I could go on for
2 hours on what is wrong with CE 399 as a piece of evidence. I
do not think any district attorney in the United States would
even try and submit CE 399, because it would blow up in your
face.
Concerning the medical that he mentioned, in the House
Select Committee volumes, volume 7, page 37, you will see a
quote saying that the witnesses at Bethesda did not see this
blown out back of the skull which the witnesses at Parkland
Hospital saw, which is strongly indicative of a shot from the
front. All right?
Well, this is what happened. When the ARRB declassified all
the medical files from the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, that turned out to be a lie, because as many
people at Bethesda saw this blown out back of the skull as saw
it at Parkland. There is, I think, 21 and 21, so you have a
grand total of 42 people.
Can 42 people all be wrong? You know? I mean, that just
defies imagination.
Mr. Burchett. Four hundred and thirty-five people are often
wrong, but that is Congress.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Mr. Burchett.
Ms. Lee, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair and our Ranking Member
Garcia, for convening today's hearing.
And thank you so much to the witnesses for being here.
I do not want this Task Force to get drawn too far down the
conspiracy theory rabbit hole when we convene these hearings,
because the reality of the CIA's past action is troubling on
its own. This dump of documents alone shows evidence of illegal
surveillance, break-ins, overstepping of authority. We have
even got specific instructions on how to wiretap, including how
to use certain chemicals to create markings on phones to tip
off spies.
But we already knew this was happening. We knew that the
CIA committed human rights abuses and illegally surveilled
people, which is why the work declassifying these documents is
so important.
We have got to have transparency, right? So that we can
learn to do better, so that we can hold agencies accountable.
But being reckless with this sensitive information is also not
the way to do it. Declassifying documents around the
assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King,
Jr., is a serious matter, and we owe it to the American people
to get right.
Unfortunately, the rollout of documents we have seen so far
has been sloppy and rushed. The release did not really give us
a smoking gun, but it did produce plenty of collateral damage.
Trump's actions have jeopardized the safety and security of
hundreds of former congressional and Federal employees by
releasing their Social Security numbers and personal
information to the public. And for what? To score political
points by rushing the release?
Many of the people whose personal information has been
exposed are rightfully afraid about their identities being
stolen and about threats to their personal safety. And people
identified in the documents are already being forced to get new
Social Security numbers, at a time when President Trump is
literally dismantling the agency that administers them.
Mr. Davisson, President Trump ordered the declassification
and release of tens of thousands of pages within 24 hours. Do
you think that that was problematic? And if so, why?
Mr. Davisson. Thank you for question.
It was.
Going back to January, of course, was the Executive Order
requiring the disclosure of all the records in the collection.
My understanding is that the process was playing out, that the
Archives was conducting the review it needed to determine what
few bits of these records needed to be redacted to protect,
among other things, the privacy of individuals whose
information was contained therein, and then that process was
short-circuited.
And despite awareness at the National Security Council and
the Archives that the disclosure of these records would cause
tangible privacy harm, the rollout was conducted without
redactions all the same, leading to the situation where, you
know, hundreds of Social Security numbers have been disclosed,
creating a quite scary and alarming situation for those whose
numbers were implicated, who now have to rush to place freezes
on their credit accounts to, if they were issued new Social
Security numbers, update all of that information with all of
their various accounts and creditors and so forth.
So, it is a serious issue for the people affected, and it
could have been avoided with just a little bit more due
diligence of the sort that the Archives normally exercises.
Ms. Lee. Yes. So, is there a way that Trump could have
protected that personal information?
Mr. Davisson. Is there a way that the President could have
protected that information? Yes, by going through the ordinary
process of reviewing these documents and dictating that, you
know, these particular Social Security numbers and other
sensitive financial pieces of information would not be
disclosed with the records.
Ms. Lee. Certainly. Thank you.
Mr. Morley, as someone who has read through all of the
documents, do you think that the documents could have been
better organized, so it was more accessible to more people?
Mr. Morley. I want to say that the release of the Social
Security numbers and other personal information was
unprofessional, reckless, careless.
I am the Vice President of the Mary Ferrell Foundation,
which sponsors the largest online archive of JFK, RFK, and MLK
records, and I was authorized by the President to release this
statement about the Social Security numbers:
``While the MFF is an advocate of full transparency and the
JFK Records Act made no exception for such information, we are
electing to reredact all the Social Security numbers in these
records. Unlike even seemingly mundane document details which
sometimes do add to the history of the case''----
Ms. Lee. Yes----
Mr. Morley [continuing]. ``Social Security numbers add
nothing of value and expose their holders to possible identity
theft. Accordingly, when we put these particular documents
online in the coming weeks, we will be adding our own
redactions to them. We will not be redacting other information.
Most other data is long''----
Ms. Lee. Certainly, Mr. Morley.
Mr. Morley [continuing]. ``Obsolete in any case.''
Ms. Lee. Thank you so much for adding that.
Mr. Morley. Yes.
Ms. Lee. I just want to be clear. An open and transparent
Federal Government is essential for public trust, and
declassification is a good thing. There is a way to do this. It
is important that we are not sloppy, that we are not rushing
things, that we are not doing things in just a haphazard way,
as we have seen with so many things that DOGE and the
Administration has touched.
What we want is for this information to be out. We want
people to understand the past, our agencies, the CIA. We need
to do it right.
With that, I yield back.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much.
Without further ado, I would like to recognize Ms. Boebert
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Hopefully, we can stay on topic for the rest of this hearing.
We seem to be wrapping up pretty close here.
Mr. Stone, you wrote a book accusing LBJ of being involved
in the killing of President Kennedy. Did these most recent
releases confirm or negate your initial charge?
Mr. Morley. She is thinking of----
Ms. Boebert. Being involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy.
Mr. Stone. No, I did not. In the film, if you look closely,
there is no such statements.
[Turns microphone on.]
Mr. Stone. No, I did not. If----
Ms. Boebert. Yes, sir----
Mr. Stone [continuing]. You look closely at the film, there
is no it accuses the President Johnson----
Ms. Boebert. OK.
Mr. Stone [continuing]. Of being part of a complicit in a
coverup of the case, but not in the assassination itself, which
I do not know.
Ms. Boebert. What do you think that he was complicit with?
Mr. Morley. I----
Ms. Boebert. Yes, sir, I will get to you in a----
Mr. Stone. The coverup--well, how about, for starters,
appointing Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA, who was fired by
Kennedy, to the Commission itself, to the Warren Commission?
And he goes to almost every meeting, and he is pretty much in
charge of the Warren Commission from the beginning.
Allen Dulles. That is part of the evidence that points to
President Johnson's either incompetence or involvement.
Ms. Boebert. Mr. Morley, I think you had something to add
on that?
Mr. Morley. I think you are confusing Mr. Oliver Stone----
Ms. Boebert. I may have mis-----
Mr. Morley [continuing]. With Mr. Roger Stone.
Ms. Boebert. I may have misstated it, yes.
Mr. Stone. Who?
Ms. Boebert. Sorry.
Mr. Morley. It is Roger Stone who implicated LBJ----
Mr. Stone. Oh.
Mr. Morley [continuing]. In the assassination of the
President. It is not my friend Oliver Stone.
Ms. Boebert. Was that what all the whispers were there? I
may have----
Mr. Morley. OK.
Ms. Boebert. I may have misinterpreted that----
Mr. Morley. Yes.
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. And I apologize for that.
Mr. Morley. OK.
Ms. Boebert. But there seems to be some alluding of, like
you said, incompetence or some sort of involvement there on the
back end. And so, not accu--sorry. I am going to move on.
Mr. Morley, I would like to talk more about the CE 399 and
this file. I want the American people to know what is in there,
that what was recently released, how that lines up to this and
how we could get more clarity there.
Mr. Morley. I am not familiar with the number that you
mentioned.
Ms. Boebert. Mr. DiEugenio?
Mr. DiEugenio. Are you talking about Commission Exhibit
399?
Ms. Boebert. Yes.
Mr. Morley. Yes.
Mr. DiEugenio. OK.
Mr. Morley. I yield my time to Jim.
Mr. DiEugenio. All right.
Ms. Boebert. I have more questions for you too, Mr. Morley.
Mr. DiEugenio. OK. Commission Exhibit 399 has a very wild
trajectory which I think any person familiar with ballistics,
you know, would question in the first place.
Then the second place is, it has a very, very dubious chain
of custody,--all right? From--it was first captured at the
Parkland Hospital. Tomlinson and Wright, who worked there,
turned it over to the Secret Service. Then the Secret Service
turned it over to the FBI.
Any investigator would want to interview Mr. Wright,
because he was the security guy who turned over the bullet to
the Secret Service. Well, Wright was not interviewed, and there
is a good reason he was not interviewed.
When Josiah Thompson was writing his book ``Six Seconds in
Dallas,'' he interviewed O.P. Wright, who was the Director of
Security at Parkland Hospital. And he said, ``Yes, I am the guy
who gave the--'' and Thompson put up a picture of CE 399 in
front of him. And Wright said, ``They say that is the bullet
that I turned over to the Secret Service?'' And he said,
``Yes.'' And he says, ``No, I did not turn over that bullet.''
And he opened up the drawer, OK, because he was in charge
of the whole security thing, and he pulled out a bullet and
says, ``This is kind of bullet that--'' it was not a hunting
round. OK? All right?
And so, he said--and he was, by the way, he was so
stupefied that, after the interview, he chased Thompson down
the hallway, and he said, ``Are you sure that is the bullet
that they said I turned over?'' And he said, ``Yes.'' And he
just shook his head. You know, he could not believe it.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you.
I would love to go into that deeper, but, Mr. Morley,
before my time is up, why do you believe that the CIA was
surveilling Lee Harvey Oswald in the years before JFK's
assassination? And what methods did the CIA use in this
surveillance?
Mr. Morley. One of the documents that was released last
month revealed that when Angleton put people on the list for
intercepting their mail, his purpose was to approach them to be
a contact or a source. So, I believe that Angleton, when he put
Oswald under mail surveillance, was considering using him as a
contact, as a source.
The means of surveillance that were used were, first, mail
surveillance, and then Oswald came under photographic
surveillance, wiretap surveillance, and contact with CIA funded
groups.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Crockett for 5 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
There often is not too much agreement when it comes
specifically to Congress, let alone to this particular
Committee. And I will tell you that you all have given me all
the feels, as someone who had an opportunity to practice law.
So, when you start talking about things such as chain of
custody, these are the things that I used to challenge all the
time as a defense attorney.
And the reason that I had to make sure that I was here, and
specifically on today, is because, on November 22, 1963,
Texas's 30th Congressional District, the district that I
represent, became the site of one of the most tragic events in
American political history.
After being struck by the bullet of an assassin, Lee Harvey
Oswald, President Kennedy was rushed to Parkland Hospital,
where hardworking physicians from the UT Southwestern Medical
Center worked tirelessly to resuscitate him.
During the 48 hours between the moment President Kennedy
was shot until the moment when Oswald was pronounced dead,
Texas's 30th Congressional District became the temporary seat
of the U.S. Government, the temporary seat of the Texas
government, the site of the 35th President's death, and the
center of the world's attention.
While I value government accountability and transparency,
like most of my colleagues, nearly all the previously
classified JFK assassination files are now public and show no
evidence of a CIA conspiracy.
But what I find funny about this hearing is that the
Republicans are here relitigating whether CIA agents lied 60
years ago but are not doing anything about the CIA Director
lying to Congress just 6 days ago.
We should be having a hearing on the fact that the
unqualified Secretary of Defense and other senior Trump
officials were carelessly discussing classified military plans
over an unsecured Signal group chat.
And instead of providing oversight over the
Administration's handling of classified information, the
Republicans have spent a week trying to convince the American
people that the military plans were not classified.
So, instead of giving a platform to conspiracy theories,
and let me be clear, there are holes. I do not want you all to
think that I do not think that there are holes. But when we are
looking back, we need to look back so that we can look forward
and hopefully do better. So, that is why I am bringing us to
present day.
It might be helpful if we walk everyone through the
classification and declassification process since the
Republicans have decided to do it this way.
Federal law defines ``classified information'' as, quote,
``information or material requiring a specific degree of
protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of
national security.'' Federal law also defines ``disclosure''
as, quote, ``communicating, providing, transmitting,
transferring, conveying, publishing, or otherwise making
available.''
Congress has long enacted classified information laws that
forbid the disclosure of classified information. Separately,
Executive Order 13526 puts in place a uniform system for
classifying and declassifying national security information.
According to the Executive Order, classified information
includes the following, ``military plans, weapons, systems, or
operations; intelligence activities, including covert actions,
intelligence sources or methods; and foreign relations or
foreign activities of the United States, including confidential
sources.''
Under the ``General Responsibilities'' provision of the
Executive Order, ``heads of agencies shall ensure that agency
records systems are designed and maintained to optimize the
appropriate sharing and safeguarding of classified information
and help facilitate its declassification.''
Not to mention that it is also illegal under Federal law to
destroy classified documents and information. So, this
Administration is breaking law by discussing classified
information over unsecured channels and breaking the law by
destroying the evidence of the conversations.
We would not be able to have today's hearing if the CIA
destroyed the records associated with the assassination of
President Kennedy.
So, Mr. Morley, would it not be impossible for you to
accurately report on the JFK assassination if the CIA and FBI
deleted all documents, like the Trump Administration officials
planned to do in the Signal group chat?
Mr. Morley. The CIA destroyed a lot of records related to
President Kennedy's assassination.
Again, I did not come here to engage in a debate about
partisan politics. I think everybody----
Ms. Crockett. I understand.
Mr. Morley [continuing]. Agrees about the JFK files. And I
want to endorse Mr. Davisson's call for full funding of public
records offices in the government.
Ms. Crockett. I understand.
And, Mr. Stone, would it not be nearly impossible to
produce a film if there was not a legitimate record of these
events taking place?
Mr. Stone. Well, that is a very good question. Not really.
I mean, the events unfolded as they did, and right away, from
day one, people were pointing out inconsistencies, way before
there was an official record of this----
Ms. Crockett. Thank you.
With that, I will yield.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Mr. Burlison for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Morley, Mr. Stone, Mr. DiEugenio, I just
want to say thank you for being here, taking time out of your
day. And I want to apologize that not everyone on this hearing
seems to want to use this time to its fullest extent.
And so I want to start by saying thank you, Mr. Stone.
Shortly after your film's release, the U.S. Congress passed the
JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, and you did
something that I do not know that I have done in my career: It
passed unanimously.
I want to give you an opportunity to talk about how it felt
and the impact of having a movie that not only has spurred
multiple hearings of Congress but unanimously passed a bill
through Congress.
Mr. Stone. Sir, at the time, I was told that by many people
who were involved, and they were very happy and thought that
this was a great public duty. I did not feel that way. I felt
like I was being skewered the whole time in the media. And many
people volunteered, important people volunteered, negative
impressions that were not based, I do not think, on reality.
People who did not even bother to see the film, for example,
who were saying that he is got Lyndon Johnson and all that
involved and----
Mr. Burlison. Yes.
Mr. Stone [continuing]. Blah, blah, blah, and he has got 55
different agencies involved. I mean, this is nonsense.
Mr. Burlison. Well, I just want to say on behalf of the
American people, thank you for what you did because----
Mr. Stone. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Burlison [continuing]. Because of your work----
Mr. Stone. That is wonderful.
Mr. Burlison [continuing]. We now have documents like this
one.
Madam Chair, I would like to enter into the record a CIA
document that ends in number 10056.
Mrs. Luna. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Burlison. In this document, it describes that the--I
mean, it dispels the narrative that when Oswald visited Mexico
City that he only met with Silvia Duran. In fact, in this
document, he met with a KGB official. Remarkably, the
individual, by the name of Kostikov, was actually a member of
KGB and Department 13.
Mr. Stone. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. Because of your work, we now have this kind
of evidence. He actually met with a member of the KGB who was
part of the wet works, the assassination team.
I also want to say thank you because, because of your work,
we have another document that I want to enter into the record.
This ends in 10191.
Mrs. Luna. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Burlison. In this document, we have a testimony that an
individual named Francisco Tamayo, otherwise known as ``El
Mexicano,'' accompanied Lee Harvey Oswald into Mexico City for
his meetings in both the Cuban Embassy and the Russian Embassy.
Mr. Stone, I am shocked that this narrative has only really
been something that we have seen only in the last few years.
You would think that the Warren Report would have reported the
fact that Oswald had met with a KGB individual in the
Department 13, you know, basically the assassination division,
and that he was accompanied by an individual known as ``El
Mexicano'' that, later, an FBI report indicated that this
individual, ``El Mexicano,'' was captured in Venezuela for
attempting to assassinate another individual.
Mr. Morley, I want to ask you about Mr. Angleton. Who is
Mr. Angleton?
Mr. Morley. James Angleton was the Chief of CIA
Counterintelligence from 1954 to 1974. In that period, he was
one of the most influential men in the CIA, serving under--one,
two, three, four--four different Directors.
Mr. Burlison. And what did he tell the Warren Commission in
1963 and 1964?
Mr. Morley. When the Warren Commission came asking Oswald--
came asking Angleton, for information about Oswald's visit to
Mexico City, Angleton wrote a memo, or told his aides, that he
wanted to--and this is a quote: ``wait out the Commission.'' He
did not cooperate and, like Richard Helms, they both basically
fooled the Warren Commission and deceived them about what they
knew about Oswald.
Mr. Burlison. And, later, we now have, because of the work
of Mr. Stone and others, we have Mr. Angleton's testimony that
he gave to the assassination Committee, the House Select
Committee on Assassinations. What insights did we gain from
that?
Mr. Morley. This document was not fully declassified until
March 18. And, in there, we learn for the first time that
Angleton had lied to the House Select Committee when he
testified in October 1978 in an office building about two
blocks from here. And that was never known before until March
18, that he had done that. And that is one of the most
significant revelations to come out of this.
People will say, ``Oh, well, there is nothing new here.''
No, there is something new here. The New York Times, The
Washington Post have never reported that one of the top--that
three top CIA officials lied to the JFK investigators.
Mr. Burlison. Yes. And the fact that we have three CIA
officials that lied to Congress for decades and that it took
decades to get documents that should have been released, that
had very compelling information, and it took 60 years to get
that information released is appalling.
And that is why I want to say thank you for all of your
work in helping to get this information released.
Mr. Stone. Thank you.
Mrs. Luna. I would like to now recognize Mr. Crane for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Madam Chair?
Mrs. Luna. Oh, sorry. Unanimous consent? Without----
Mr. Burlison. Yes.
Mrs. Luna [continuing]. Objection, so ordered.
Mr. Burlison. So, I have some more documents I want to
enter into the record.
Here is, from the National Archives, a NARA letter dated
2017, that the CIA withheld docs regardless of the JFK Act.
Mrs. Luna. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Burlison. Another document from the Archives that the
Warren Commission did not have original classification
authority.
Mrs. Luna. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Burlison. And then another document from the Archives
with the FBI's reasoning for redactions, dated 2017 in the NARA
letter.
Mrs. Luna. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Luna. I would like to now recognize Mr. Crane for 5
minutes.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.
Thank you, guys, for coming out today. You guys have
probably forgot more about the JFK assassination than I will
ever know, so I am still going to ask you some questions. And I
appreciate, you know, just how dogged you guys have been on
this for decades.
Mr. Morley, I want to start with you. What is the most
interesting information you found in this newest release of
documents on the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. Morley. The nine memos about James Angleton that were
fully declassified on March 18 is the most important collection
that I have seen so far.
There is a lot of information that has come out. Jim
mentioned the Arthur Schlesinger memo. That really sets the
stage for the alienation between the Kennedy White House and
the CIA that lasted for the rest of Kennedy's Presidency.
So, I would say that the Angleton memos and the Schlesinger
memo are the most important things I have seen so far.
Mr. Crane. Thank you.
Mr. Morley, do you believe that Oswald was recruited and
being handled as a source for the CIA?
Mr. Morley. I believe Oswald was an agent of influence who
was manipulated by the CIA.
Mr. Crane. OK.
And as I was going through some research, one of the things
that I found interesting, and please correct me if I am
mistaken here, any of you guys on the panel, but Mr. Underhill,
who was a CIA agent himself who apparently left D.C. the days
after the assassination in a hurry; Gary Underhill then
confided in a friend that a clique within the CIA had
assassinated Kennedy. He also told his friends that he may need
to leave the country and that he feared for his life.--Mr.
Underhill was then found dead 6 months later.
I am going to start with you, Mr. Morley. Do you find those
types of stories surrounding Mr. Underhill to be credible?
Mr. Morley. Mr. Underhill was hardly alone in suspecting
CIA involvement of the assassination. President Harry Truman
suspected it, President Johnson suspected it, and President
Richard Nixon suspected it.
So, I think that Gary Underhill was a man who worked in the
intelligence community and was in a position to know something.
His story is not confirmed, but it is consistent with what lots
of other people thought.
Mr. Crane. What was his title? Do you remember, Mr. Morley?
Mr. Morley. He was not a CIA employee. He was an arms
dealer who assisted the CIA in acquiring weapons and, you know,
shipping them.
Mr. Crane. Do you know how he died, Mr. Morley?
Mr. Morley. I do not know anything more than was reported
in the documents.
Mr. Crane. Mr. DiEugenio, do you know how he died?
Mr. DiEugenio. ``DiEugenio.''
Mr. Crane. Sorry about that.
Mr. DiEugenio. You are not the first one.
Mr. Crane. Yes. Do you know how he died, sir? Mr.
Underhill.
Mr. Stone. Do you know how he died?
Mr. DiEugenio. Gary Underhill?
Mr. Crane. Yes.
Mr. DiEugenio. Gary Underhill was--his body was discovered
by his friend Asher Brynes, who was a magazine writer at the
time. And the door was open, ajar a little, and Brynes entered
the room, and he thought Underhill was sleeping. But, as he
approached the body, he saw that there was a hole, a bullet
hole, in his head. All right?
Asher Brynes was so disgusted by the investigation that
came after that he did not even want to talk about what had
happened.
But one of the things about the Underhill death is that,
for him to have taken his own life, the gun was in the wrong
hand, OK? All right? So, that was one of the most puzzling
things, you know, about that particular case.
You know, Underhill has been, I believe, very much ignored,
you know, by a lot of people, and I am glad that this memo
finally got out there.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Morley, are you familiar with Michael Franzese, who was
a capo for the Colombo family?
Mr. Morley. I have appeared with him twice on the ``Piers
Morgan Show.'' That is all I know.
Mr. Crane. OK. Thank you.
He claims that the mob was involved in this hit, since the
deal between the Kennedys and the mob was broken after the
election. Do you find that to be credible?
Mr. Morley. I think Mr. Franzese's contention that the
organized crime role in President Kennedy's assassination is
very clear. And he said that it was common knowledge among the
crime bosses who he dealt with that their role in the
assassination was to eliminate the chief witness, Lee Harvey
Oswald. Mr. Franzese said that both times when I was on ``Piers
Morgan'' with him, and I believe him.
Mr. Crane. Yes. Thank you.
This question is more based on the future or, I should say,
the present day. After two assassination attempts of President
Trump within the last year and the little that we now know
about Thomas Crooks and Ryan Routh, do any of you guys on the
panel believe that we are seeing history repeat itself?
Mr. Morley. No.
Mr. Crane. Mr. Stone?
Mr. Stone. I express my own surprise that so little do we
still know about Mr. Crooks and the other assassination
attempt. So, I am--I would see similarities here.
Mr. Crane. Thank you.
I am out of time. I yield back.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Gill for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Chairwoman Luna.
According to Pew Research, trust in the Federal Government
has plummeted from 74 percent in 1958, to 22 percent in 2025.
That is a trajectory that is utterly unsustainable and, in the
long term, incompatible with democratic self-governance.
Unfortunately, a lot of that decline in trust is justified.
The JFK assassination attempt--excuse me--the JFK assassination
happened over 60 years ago, and we still do not have all of the
facts about what happened that day.
Mr. Morley, thank you for being here, and thank you for all
of your work that you have done on this.
Do you believe that the CIA is in compliance with President
Trump's Executive Order to declassify and release the JFK
files?
Mr. Morley. No. There are important records that have not
been provided, like the personnel file of George Joanides.
I should also note that, as we go through these records,
there are still redactions in some of these records, and not a
huge amount, but we have not had full compliance either in
producing all the records or in completely releasing all the
records that were redacted.
Mr. Gill. And, for the record, how many of the JFK files
has the CIA released since the Executive Order was issued?
Mr. Morley. The figure of 80,000 pages is accurate, as far
as we can tell. And that is information from several thousand
documents.
Mr. Gill. Are those from the CIA specifically?
Mr. Morley. Most of the records that were released last
month, about 80 percent of them were from the CIA.
Mr. Gill. OK.
And how many documents do you believe the CIA still has
that either have not been released or are overly redacted?
Mr. Morley. Since we have not seen them, it is hard to put
a number on it, but I would put the number in the hundreds.
Mr. Gill. OK.
Mr. Morley. Hundreds of documents.
Mr. Gill. Hundreds. OK.
And you are one of the foremost researchers on this topic.
In your opinion, since the Warren Commission, has the Federal
Government been forthcoming with information related to the JFK
assassination?
Mr. Morley. No. All of this information could have been
released a long time ago. By law, all of it should have been
released 8 years ago. So, the attitude of obstruction and
obfuscation from the CIA started on November 22, 1963, when CIA
officers started lying about what the CIA knew, and that
attitude unfortunately has continued to the present day.
Mr. Gill. And we have had several congressional
investigations related to these files. During those inquiries,
in your estimation, do you believe that any FBI, CIA, or other
government officials have lied under oath or deliberately
misled investigators?
Mr. Morley. In my remarks, I identified three of them who
definitely lied, it is beyond reasonable doubt:
Counterintelligence Chief Angleton, Director Helms, and Branch
Chief George Joanides.
Mr. Gill. And given the amount of uncertainty that we have
related to these files, do you believe that there is
information that we will never know about because, for
instance, maybe the information has already been permanently
deleted or the figures involved have died?
Mr. Morley. I am actually optimistic that we can get to the
bottom of this matter. We have a new attitude on the part of
the government. We have President Trump's executive order which
strengthens the existing mandates of the JFK Records Act.
So, I think if the Task Force and the public and the
Congress apply pressure and demand this material, we can get it
and we can reach a decisive clarification about the causes of
President Kennedy's assassination.
Mr. Gill. Thank you.
And I would like to yield the balance of my time to the
Chairwoman.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much, Mr. Gill.
Mr. Stone, I would like to ask you specifically, in talking
with you earlier, you mentioned three women that were witnesses
that had their testimoneys omitted by the Warren Commission in
regards to seeing Oswald in the Book Depository. Can you speak
to that a little bit, please?
Mr. Stone. Yes. It is a very interesting piece of
information that we put into our documentary ``JFK Revisited.''
It came out of the ARRB, or it came out from----
Mr. DiEugenio. I am not sure if it did.
Mr. Stone. Anyway----
Mr. DiEugenio. It came out in recent years.
Mr. Stone. It came out in recent years around that time.
Barry Ernest wrote about it and was interviewed in our film, in
which he says that, in addition to--there were three women on
the fourth floor during the time of the assassination. They
witnessed it from above, and immediately they were headed down
to see what was going on at a closer angle.
Two of the women went downstairs quickly. The third woman,
Dorothy Garner, who was a supervisor, an older woman, watched
them go down the stairs. They were down--all this happened
within 30 seconds.
Oswald was on the--if he was on the sixth--floor, which I
sincerely doubt, had to be a track star to store the weapon, to
run across the floor, and go down those same stairs, which--and
appear, as he did, to Marrion Baker in the second-floor
lunchroom.
All of this was highly unlikely, and I think that should be
addressed.
Two of the women are still alive?
Mr. DiEugenio. No, Victoria Adams passed away. But I think
Sandy Styles is still alive.
The Garner, it is called the Stroud document, and it has
Garner's testimony in it, all right? This was discovered by
writer Barry Ernest in 1999 as a result of the ARRB, all right?
And it turned out that the Texas Attorney General, Stroud, had
talked to Garner, the supervisor, and sent this information to
the Warren Commission in the summer of 1964.
But you will not find it in any of the Warren Commission
volumes, even though it is a kind of important piece of the
evidence because Garner said that, you know, she never saw
Oswald on the stairs and the two girls went down before the
policemen and the supervisor truly came up. So, it is very hard
to believe that Oswald was hurrying down those stairs, you
know, and this woman never saw him.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much.
Mr. Oswald--Mr. Oswald--Mr. Stone, sorry. Lots of
``Oswalds'' today.
Mr. Stone, one of my last questions for you before we wrap
up this hearing: would you recommend that the Task Force send a
letter requesting NBC make a copy, a clear copy, of these----
Mr. Stone. Certainly, that would be very interesting.
Mr. DiEugenio and I saw a film of the potential Oswald
watching the motorcade go by, which means that he was
downstairs at the time of the shooting. And that would be very
interesting to see. We could not say for sure that that was
Oswald, but it is a man who looks like him.
So, I think it would be a very good idea for the Task Force
to subpoena NBC, which has the original film?
Mr. DiEugenio. Yes. They supposedly have the original, yes.
Mr. Stone. They have the original film. They have refused
it twice to be shown?
Mr. DiEugenio. Yes.
Mr. Stone. And if this Task Force could easily get--that
and the American public should have a right to judge for itself
who was standing there.
Mrs. Luna. Well, first of all, I would like to thank our
witnesses for being here today.
There are those in our country who may ask why this Task
Force seeks to pursue the truth underlying the facts
surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in
1963, and the answer to that is, the truth, even the truth
delayed, and justice, even justice delayed, is always worth
attaining. And the men and women who have sought answers
regarding the assassination of American President John F.
Kennedy for all the world to see have been obstructed and
hampered by our own government for over 60 years.
This hearing is not meant to provide a definitive
explanation of the Kennedy assassination. This hearing
demonstrates, however, that the CIA and other components of the
Federal Government have not been honest with the American
people that they are meant to serve, up until recent efforts.
And the American people must hold these agencies accountable,
and they can.
I have invited Mr. Stone, a filmmaker, to this hearing
because he did just that, motivating Congress in the 1990s to
pass a law that began the declassification process. And I would
like to applaud our President for continuing this process, as
he promised to do so.
Researchers like Mr. Morley and Mr. DiEugenio have provided
new information that help bring light to some of the darkest
days in American history.
And I would like to thank the witnesses again and applaud
their work. The search for truth continues, and the Task Force
will pursue this at any price.
I would also like to note that we are planning on sending a
letter to NBC requesting what you have recommended, Mr. Stone.
Before I wrap it up, I would just like to say, do you guys
have any statements in closing for the American people?
Mr. Morley. I just would like to thank you, Chairwoman
Luna, for your aggressive, action oriented approach to this
issue. While we diverge politically, it has been a pleasure to
work with you, and your leadership is important on this. Like I
said before, I think we are making progress.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you.
Mr. Stone or Mr. DiEugenio?
Mr. Stone. Thank you, Chairwoman. I really admire what you
are doing, and I wish you the best of success.
Mrs. Luna. Mr. DiEugenio?
Mr. DiEugenio. I think one of the things that the Committee
should do is talk to some of the people who were on the ARRB so
you can understand just how difficult it was for them and why
they could not complete their job, all right? I certainly,
certainly hope that this Committee does complete that job, and,
finally, you know, 62 years later, we will know everything the
government did know about it.
One thing that the gentleman down here asked about. See,
very few people know, there were three attempts on JFK's life
in November, OK? There was one in Chicago, there was one in
Tampa, and then there was the successful one, you know, in
Dallas.
The Chicago attempt so much resembles what happened in
Dallas that if the Secret Service would have given all those
records over, OK, then the Dallas one might have been
prevented.
At the one in Tampa, that one there was just the opposite
of Dallas. You had wall-to-wall Secret Service, FBI, et cetera.
And Kennedy was so happy that he got away, that he stayed after
at the Floridian Hotel and insisted on shaking hands with every
single officer that was involved in that attempt, all right?
So, these are some of the records that are still out there.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much, Mr. DiEugenio.
Mr. Davisson?
Mr. Davisson. I will just thank you again for the
opportunity to testify and encourage the Task Force again to
take all steps possible as this process moves forward to ensure
the protection of the privacy of individuals who are named in
these records and to ensure that Federal public records offices
have the resources they need to provide valuable public
information to the public in a timely fashion.
Mrs. Luna. Absolutely. Although I do not speak for this
Administration, I know that everyone is well aware of the
Social Securities and working to the best of their ability to
ensure that those people are taken care of. So, that is being
looked into on our end.
Without further ado, without objection, all Members have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for a response.
Mrs. Luna. If there is no further business, without
objection, the Task Force stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the Task Force was adjourned.]
[all]