Post by Rob Caprio on May 6, 2020 19:46:50 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.jta.org/wp-content/uploads/1960/12/GettyImages-515513228-2160x1200.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, all by himself with no assistance from anyone else. And yet, time and time again in this case we see the official agencies and part of the government invoking “national security” reasons for why they can’t share evidence with us for why a “loner” with NO apparent motive would kill JFK. Does this make any sense to you?
We will look at this issue in greater detail in this post.
***************************************************
The Secretary of State of the United States, Dean Rusk, was called by the WC in 1964 to discuss different things relating to the assassination of JFK. Almost immediately we see this question being asked by Mr. Rusk in regards to what he wants to say and not say since these words will be published and available to the American people.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please, and Mr. Rankin will ask you the questions, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary RUSK. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask one question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed.
Secretary RUSK. I would like to be just as helpful as possible to the Commission. I am not quite clear of testimony in terms of future publication. There may be certain points that arise where it might be helpful to the Commission for me to comment on certain points but there it would be a very grave difficulty about publication, so I wonder what the Commission's view on that is.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Secretary, our purpose is to have available for the public all of the evidence that is given here. If there is any phase of it that you think might jeopardize the security of the Nation, have no hesitation in asking us to go off the record for a moment, and you can tell us what you wish.
Secretary RUSK. Thank you, sir, I am at your disposal.
What could Mr. Rusk say about a supposed loner who killed JFK all by himself that there would be “a very grave difficulty about publication” of these words to the American people? Now, some may say he meant ongoing things the JFK administration were working on and relationships with other countries might be what he meant, but what does that have to do with LHO being the sole assassin as the WC was claiming? Furthermore, notice Chief Justice (CJ) Earl Warren reply to him. Why would anything relating to a 'loner' "jeopardize the security of the Nation" as Warren says? What information could Mr. Rusk be giving about LHO that would “jeopardize the security of the nation?" Does this make any sense to you?
In the same vein, notice how Warren says that all the evidence given to them will be made available to the American people, but what he did not mention is the tons of evidence that would be hidden until 2039. I wonder why? Why is this necessary if a man acting alone did in fact kill JFK?
Former CIA Director Allen Dulles then makes a suggestion that leads to an OFF the RECORD discussion to see what he may say, and then they come back assured in the belief the American people will NOT hear anything they don’t want us to hear.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chief Justice, could I make a suggestion in that connection?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Would it be feasible to have a discussion here of the points that are vital from the point of view of our record, and so forth, and maybe a little informal conversation afterward to cover the other points.
The CHAIRMAN. We will have a recess for a few moments then.
Mr. DULLES. I thought between the two wouldn't that be easier than put the two together.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
What was the point of calling him then? Why was he called at all as I can’t see how he would know anything about a loner and it was determined within twenty-four hours that NO other country was involved in this assassination, but let’s read on.
Soon after the above exchange Mr. Rusk makes a great point that I want to share with WC defenders out there who may read this.
Mr. RANKIN. In your opinion, was there any substantial interest or interests of the Soviet Union which would have been advanced by the assassination of President Kennedy?
Secretary RUSK. I would first have to say on a question of that sort that it is important to follow the evidence. It is very difficult to look into the minds of someone else, and know what is in someone else's mind.
I have seen no evidence that would indicate to me that the Soviet Union considered that it had an interest in the removal of President Kennedy or that it was in any way involved in the removal of President Kennedy…Now, standing back and trying to look at that question objectively despite the ideological differences between our two great systems, I can't see how it could be to the interest of the Soviet Union to make any such effort.
Since I have become Secretary of State I have seen no evidence of any policy of assassination of leaders of the free world on the part of the Soviets, and our intelligence community has not been able to furnish any evidence pointing in that direction. I am sure that I would have known about such bits of evidence had they existed but I also made inquiry myself to see whether there was such evidence, and received a negative reply.
The first point I’d like to make is notice how he said “It is very difficult to look into the minds of someone else, and know what is in someone else's mind”, but this is exactly what the WC did and what WC defenders do today in regards to LHO and his actions. They constantly seem to know, according to them of course, why he did this or that and it always leads them to saying this is why he was guilty. How could they know what was going on in LHO’s mind? They could not of course know so this is just a weak attempt to cast aspersions on him because they have NO evidence to show that he was guilty as claimed.
He then goes on to say he believes the Soviet Union had nothing to do with JFK’s death and why would they since the relationship between Washington, D.C. and Moscow was becoming better than ever? Why did the Secretary of State for the United States think the Soviet system of Communism was a “great system” by the way? Why would he think the oppressive Communist system that we were spending billions of dollars on combating was a “great system?” Doesn’t this sound odd to you?
Secretary Rusk would make other comments that I found both odd and ironic since these reflected things the WC (and of course FBI) did NOT do in the course of their investigation into the assassination of JFK.
Secretary RUSK. …But one of the great questions in my mind at that time was just that question, could some foreign government somehow be involved in such an episode. I realized that were this so this would raise the gravest issues of war and peace, but that nevertheless it was important to try to get at the truth--to the answer to that question--wherever that truth might lead…so when I got back to Washington I put myself immediately in touch with the processes of inquiry on that point, and as Secretary of State had the deepest possible interest in what the truthful answer to those questions would be, because it would be hard to think of anything more pregnant for our foreign relations than the correct answer to that question.
Now they did come to premature conclusions [the Soviets], in my judgment, about what this event was and what it meant in terms of who might have been responsible for it--and ideological effect has crept into that.
This is laughable when we reflect on what the FBI, CIA and the WC did in regards to this case as NONE of them followed the evidence to the truth as Mr. Rusk said. He even said, “…wherever that truth may lead…” and again we know from this series and the great research of so many over the last fifty years that the WC did NOT do this. Mr. Rusk also felt the Soviets came to a “premature conclusion”, but he had no such admonishments for the Dallas Police Department (DPD) who supposedly solved the case in an HOUR AND TWENTY ONE MINUTES or the FBI who supposedly solved the case in anywhere from one day to a week (their report was finalized on November 29, 1963) however. Why NOT? How could anyone or any government rush to judgment or come to a premature conclusion faster than these two did? Also, Rusk would endorse information that would appear within twenty-four hours in the national Media about NO conspiracy being involved. Was this his version of searching for the truth? It sounds like the FBI and WC's to me.
Mr. Rankin than asks Secretary Rusk a series of questions that should have been asked of CIA Director John McCone or FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH).
Mr. RANKIN. There has been some suggestion that possibly the leadership of the Soviet Union would not have been politically interested in the death of the President but possibly a distant wing of the Party might have been so involved. Can you give us any light on that, Mr. Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. By suggestion you mean rumor?
Mr. RANKIN. In the newspapers, and things of that kind, rumor.
Secretary RUSK. I haven't been able to put a rational structure behind that possibility. If there are dissident elements their primary problem is within the Soviet Union… I don't quite see how the elimination of the President of the United States could contribute to that I would also suppose that in their kind of system such elements would be under pretty close supervision and surveillance and they would have limited opportunities for the kind of action that would be organized in a way in this direction, although that is a matter of some speculation.
Mr. RANKIN. How could you tell us in regard to Cuba in the same general way, your opinion and knowledge of any information or credible evidence?
Secretary RUSK. Well, I would again repeat that the overriding consideration is to make every possible effort to find evidence and follow the evidence to wherever it leads. I think it is, at least for me, more difficult to try to enter into the minds of the present leadership in Cuba than, perhaps, even of the present leadership of the Soviet Union. We have had very few contacts, as the Commission knows, with the present Government of Cuba. But again, I have seen no evidence that seems to point in that direction.
Precisely Mr. Rusk, why is he asking YOU these questions instead of asking McCone or JEH about these things since they were supposedly “investigating” this assassination and gathering evidence? One would have thought in 1964 that they were following the evidence too “no matter where it lead”, but now in 2014 we know that is a crock as they ONLY followed it to LHO and LHO alone. Even if there was evidence pointing in the direction of Cuba or the Soviet Union would Mr. Rusk have been shown it by the FBI and CIA?
They then discuss the possibility of evidence showing a foreign government being involved in JFK’s assassination.
Mr. RANKIN. There was another statement in the paper apparently purporting to be official that one of the Commissioners asked me to ask about and that was the Washington Post, Sunday, November 24, 1963, which was quoted by the Commissioner as, "Today in Washington State Department officials said they have no evidence indicating involvement of any foreign power in the assassination."
Do you know anything about that or can you give us any information?
Secretary RUSK. That was the view which we took at the time in consultation with the investigative agencies. We did not then have evidence of that sort nor do we now, and the implications of suggesting evidence in the absence of evidence would have been enormous.
Representative FORD. I don't understand that.
Secretary RUSK. Well, for us to leave the impression that we had evidence that we could not describe or discuss, when in fact we didn't have the evidence on a matter of such overriding importance could have created a very dangerous situation in terms of----
Representative FORD. Wouldn't it have been just as effective to say no comment?
Secretary RUSK. Well, unfortunately, under the practices of the press, no comment would have been taken to confirm that there was evidence. I mean, that would have been the interpretation that many would have put upon no comment.
But, Mr. Ford, I think the key thing is that at the time that statement was made we did not have such evidence. I mean, this was a factual statement at that time.
Of course what is NOT being asked or discussed is if there was evidence pointing to DOMESTIC involvement in the assassination. Furthermore, the issue of whether the State Department had evidence or not of a foreign government’s involvement does NOT mean there was NO evidence of this, but rather simply means Mr. Rusk did NOT know of any. There is a big difference between the two. The way in which it was published made it sound like there was NO evidence of a foreign country being involved since there was NO evidence showing that NOW and in the future since it did NOT happen. This is not what Rusk is saying here though. Thus, this was a false statement meant to mislead the American people IMO since it did NOT say they would CONTINUE to investigate this possibility.
Also, as was discussed earlier in regard to the Soviet Union it could have been simply an “element” of a foreign country (extremist group, intelligence group, etc…) that was involved and NOT the whole government. The same is true for us, I don’t think anyone would reasonably argue the WHOLE U.S. government was involved, but rather they would say elements or parts of it might have been.
Gerald Ford then asked a very pertinent question that ties in with my point about knowing about evidence and there being or not being any evidence.
Representative FORD. But, at that time, this was 2 days after the assassination, you really didn't have much time to evaluate all of the evidence.
Secretary RUSK. Well, that is correct. But if the evidence or the known facts had changed certainly that type of statement would have changed. In other words, such statements are based upon the situation as known at the time the statements are made.
Representative FORD. This statement then appeared in the Sunday morning, November 24 issue or edition of the Washington Post. That was a statement issued certainly on the 23d of November because it had to be in order to get in the Sunday edition of the Post. So, that is 24 hours after the assassination.
Secretary RUSK. That is correct, sir, and this statement was made on the basis of such information as was available to us in the first 24 hours.
This is a very good question and it highlights the point that the American public was being carefully mislead by the U.S. Government and the Media. How in the world could the State Department or any other department or agency know for sure within 24 hours that there was “no evidence indicating involvement of any foreign power in the assassination?” It is true they may NOT have uncovered it yet or determined there was none, but you can’t know within 24 hours something of this magnitude for sure as the headline made it seem. This was to mislead the American people and the world about what really happened to JFK. I give kudos to Gerald Ford for highlighting this folly for us. Yes, he moved the wound when he shouldn’t have, but in quite a few cases Gerald Ford asked questions like this when no one else would (save for Allen Dulles on a number of occasions or Senator Richard Russell on a few occasions) and showed the folly of this whole affair and work of the conspirators in action.
Secretary Rusk is then asked a question about who would have been responsible for that information making it into the newspapers.
Mr. RANKIN. I was also asked to inquire whether that was an official statement if under your responsibility or if you could tell me who would be responsible for it?
Secretary RUSK. Well, I would have to check the actual source of the statement. But I would have no present doubt that it was an officer of the Department who was authorized to make that and for which I would be fully responsible.
Secretary Rusk took full responsibility for this ridiculous and misleading comment too. They should have said it as only been 24 hours or so and we are still investigating and considering all options, but it is clear that the marching orders regarding LHO being the sole assassin had come down quickly by this comment.
The topic of conversation than moved to the issue of an “international conspiracy” being added to the indictment by the Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr, and whether this was correct or not. Notice the STANDARD they place on evidence for this being included.
Mr. DULLES. There was some evidence presented here quite recently when the district attorney of Dallas was here with regard to a message from Washington, from the White House to the attorney general of Texas, who was also here the other day before the Commission, on this point: A rumor had reached Washington that in preparing the indictment there, they were going to put in some reference to an international conspiracy. As a matter of fact, when that was run down it was not a correct rumor. But when that reached Washington, the reaction was rather strong and I think entirely understandable, and word went back to Dallas from high quarters that that should not, hoped that that would not be included in the legal proceedings and papers that were filed in connection with the assassination of the President and charging----
Mr. RANKIN. Unless there was evidence to support it.
Mr. DULLES. Unless there was evidence to support it. And the district attorney, who was here, testified that he had never considered adding that into it, putting that in the proceedings because if you put it in you had to prove it, and it is not necessary at all. All you need to do is allege a murder with intent, and so forth, and so on. So that that was all pretty well cleared up.
Mr. DULLES. Did that ever reach your attention, did you know anything about that?
Secretary RUSK. I don't personally recall that particular message… I didn't arrive until----…Until the early morning of the 23d.
Mr. CHAYES. I may be able to supply some information to the Commission on this point because during the night of the 22d when we were examining the data in my office, the files, I did receive a call from Mr. Katzenbach who said that they had heard at the Justice Department, that there was a possibility that this kind of an element would get into the indictment, and said that--I can't remember the exact words that he used--but he conveyed to me that he regarded this as not very good, in the absence of evidence to support it, and said that he was seeking to have Mr. Saunders, who is the U.S. attorney in Dallas, admitted to the councils of the State officials there so that they could discuss these matters as time went on. And that he would try to, I don't know exactly again what he said, but that he would try to see that in the absence of evidence no such allegation was made in the indictment.
Representative FORD. Would you check, however, Mr. Secretary, to see if there is anything further in this regard?
Secretary RUSK. Yes; I will.
Isn’t it funny and ironic that they said this was not included since there was NO evidence to support it when they would then do the same thing to LHO when there was NO evidence to support those charges either? Furthermore, the complexity of finding evidence for a foreign government’s involvement is much greater than finding evidence on one person, so why was the plug pulled so fast on this when it had only been such a short period of time? Again, we see the marching orders of the conspiracy in play here in this matter.
They would end the testimony with this question.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, will you tell us whether you know of any credible evidence to show or establish or tending to show any conspiracy either domestic or foreign involved in the assassination of President Kennedy?
Secretary RUSK. No; I have no evidence that would point in that direction or to lead me to a conclusion that such a conspiracy existed.
Was the Secretary of State the best person to ask about this? Despite his earlier comments about getting at the truth no matter where it lead this does NOT tell us if he had an ACTIVE INVESTIGATION into the assassination going on. If not, how would he know if there was any credible evidence pointing to a foreign or domestic conspiracy? Furthermore, if it was domestic in nature this would probably make it even harder to find out since the groups who were doing the investigation were considered culpable by the WC themselves, so why would they pass on evidence of their possible involvement to the State Department or anyone else? This really solves nothing to ask Mr. Rusk this question.
The director of the CIA, John McCone, would be called before the WC too. He was accompanied by CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms as well. They were asked about LHO being tied to the CIA in any way and here is what they said.
Mr. RANKIN. Without disclosing something that might be a security matter, could you tell us how that is handled in a general way in the Agency?
Mr. McCONE. Mr. Helms, who is directly responsible for that division of the Agency's activities as a Deputy Director, might explain. Would that be permissible?
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Helms, did you have anything to do on behalf of your Agency with determining whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was acting in any of the capacities I have described in my questions to Mr. McCone?
Mr. HELMS. Yes; I did.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you did in that regard?
Mr. HELMS. On Mr. McCone's behalf, I had all of our records searched to see if there had been any contacts at any time prior to President Kennedy's assassination by anyone in the Central Intelligence Agency with Lee Harvey Oswald. We checked our card files and our personnel files and all our records.
Now, this check turned out to be negative. In addition I got in touch with those officers who were in positions of responsibility at the times in question to see if anybody had any recollection of any contact having even been suggested with this man. This also turned out to be negative, so there is no material in the Central Intelligence Agency, either in the records or in the mind of any of the individuals, that there was any contact had or even contemplated with him.
This is all well and good but remember that Allen Dulles said the CIA would NEVER admit anyone worked for them--even while under oath. So, this testimony really means nothing in the big scheme of things. Gerald Ford would then ask if a member of the Commission staff had an opportunity to view the file on LHO. Commission Exhibit (CE) 870 is a affidavit from CIA Director John McCone denying that there was any connection between LHO and the CIA.
CE 870: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0446b.jpg
Representative FORD. Has a member of the Commission staff had full access to your files on Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. HELMS. He has, sir.
Representative FORD. They have had the opportunity to personally look at the entire file?
Mr. HELMS. We invited them to come out to our building in Langley and actually put the file on the table so that they could examine it.
The CHAIRMAN. I was personally out there, too, and was offered the same opportunity. I did not avail myself of it because of the time element, but I was offered the same opportunity.
Who was this staff member? What did they see? Who knows since it was all kept secret. CJ Warren’s comment is worthless and shows the interest he really had in finding the truth in this case as he claimed he was offered to look at the CIA’s file on LHO, but couldn’t “avail himself of it because of the time element.” What kind of nonsense is this? You are heading a commission that has been tasked with learning the truth in the murder of a JFK and you can’t find the time to look at a CIA file on the person you are going to say did it? What?
Mr. RANKIN. By that you mean the representatives of the Commission were able to satisfy themselves that they had all of the information for the benefit of the Commission without disclosing matters that would be a threat to security; is that right?
Mr. HELMS. It is my understanding that they were satisfied.
Now it is a “they” that were satisfied. Who were these staff members and why were they satisfied that LHO was NOT involved with the CIA in anyway? Director McCone would then be asked if he knew of any evidence that showed there was a conspiracy involved in the murder of JFK.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, if I may return to you, I will now ask you if you have any credible information that you know of or evidence causing you to believe that there is any or was any conspiracy either domestic or foreign in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. McCONE. No; I have no information, Mr. Rankin, that would lead me to believe or conclude that a conspiracy existed.
So the total lack of evidence showing it was LHO was NOT evidence that there was a conspiracy to him? As was said by quite a few to Robert Kennedy--if you wanted to find something out in the CIA the LAST person you went to was John McCone as he was considered an outsider, and thus, things were kept from him. Therefore, this answer is NO surprise for that reason and the reason IF the CIA had elements involved they would NEVER admit this to the WC.
He would continue with this statement.
Representative FORD. Did the CIA make an investigation of this aspect of the assassination?
Mr. McCONE. We made an investigation of all developments after the assassination which came to our attention which might possibly have indicated a conspiracy, and we determined after these investigations, which were made promptly and immediately, that we had no evidence to support such an assumption.
How could he know about the attempts on Castro’s life and NOT think this was important enough to mention to the WC? Ditto the Chicago and Tampa attempts that were foiled at the last minute? How could he NOT think there was a conspiracy? Of course he did NOT say that, did he? He simply said they did NOT find any evidence of a conspiracy and that is NOT hard when you are NOT looking for any.
Notice how he uses the correct term for LHO’s supposed trip to Mexico City.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, your Agency made a particular investigation in connection with any allegations about a conspiracy involving the Soviet Union or people connected with Cuba, did you not?
Mr. McCONE. Yes, we did. We made a thorough, a very thorough, investigation of information that came to us concerning an alleged trip that Oswald made to Mexico City during which time he made contact with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in an attempt to gain transit privileges from Mexico City to the Soviet Union via Havana. We investigated that thoroughly.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you also include in your statement that you found no evidence of conspiracy in all of that investigation?
Mr. McCONE. That is correct.
Alleged trip indeed. So someone IMPERSONATING LHO was not a tip off that a conspiracy was involved? Again, IF parts of the CIA were involved in the murder of JFK, even “rogue” elements, the CIA could NEVER admit this, thus, the ruling had to be LHO acted alone. Richard Helms even said this about the case not being closed then or the future.
Representative FORD. In other words, the case isn't closed.
Mr. HELMS. It is not closed as far as we are concerned.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be true, Mr. Helms, even after the Commission completed its report, you would keep the matter open if there was anything new that developed in the future that could be properly presented to the authorities?
Mr. HELMS. Yes. I would assume the case will never be closed.
It sure seems CLOSED based on what the government has done in regard to this case, doesn’t it? What was the last thing the CIA investigated in this case? LHO’s alleged trip to Mexico City I’m sure. If it isn’t closed, then why is there NO activity on it? Surely over the last fifty plus years some leads had to have come to the CIA, but we see they have NOT made any announcements about them to us. Why NOT?
Later in his testimony Director McCone would say LHO did go to Mexico City (remember he used the word “alleged” before in regard to this trip), but that this had NOTHING to do with the assassination in the CIA’s view.
Representative FORD. Did the Central Intelligence Agency investigate any aspects of Oswald's trip to Mexico?
Mr. McCONE. Yes; we did.
Representative FORD. Can you give us any information on that?
Mr. McCONE. Yes; we were aware that Oswald did make a trip to Mexico City and it was our judgment that he was there in the interest of insuring transit privileges and that he made contact with the Cuban Embassy while he was there.
We do not know the precise results of his effort, but we assumed, because he returned to the United States, he was unsuccessful. We have examined to every extent we can and using all resources available to us every aspect of his activity and we could not verify that he was there for any other purpose or that his trip to Mexico was in any way related to his later action in assassinating President Kennedy.
Why did he change his view here? Now he claims LHO “did make the trip to Mexico City” whereas before he said it was an “alleged” trip. There is no evidence showing the real LHO was there as the photograph and voice recording presented do NOT depict LHO’s likeness or voice on them. What is he basing this comment on? It would seem like he relied on "assumptions" to me in this area.
We will get into that in our next installment of this series, but for now we again see evidence in the WC’s twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits that shows they did NOT consider all the possibilities that could have happened nor did they follow the evidence “no matter where it lead”, thus, their conclusion cannot be the correct one. It is again sunk.
www.jta.org/wp-content/uploads/1960/12/GettyImages-515513228-2160x1200.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, all by himself with no assistance from anyone else. And yet, time and time again in this case we see the official agencies and part of the government invoking “national security” reasons for why they can’t share evidence with us for why a “loner” with NO apparent motive would kill JFK. Does this make any sense to you?
We will look at this issue in greater detail in this post.
***************************************************
The Secretary of State of the United States, Dean Rusk, was called by the WC in 1964 to discuss different things relating to the assassination of JFK. Almost immediately we see this question being asked by Mr. Rusk in regards to what he wants to say and not say since these words will be published and available to the American people.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please, and Mr. Rankin will ask you the questions, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary RUSK. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask one question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed.
Secretary RUSK. I would like to be just as helpful as possible to the Commission. I am not quite clear of testimony in terms of future publication. There may be certain points that arise where it might be helpful to the Commission for me to comment on certain points but there it would be a very grave difficulty about publication, so I wonder what the Commission's view on that is.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Secretary, our purpose is to have available for the public all of the evidence that is given here. If there is any phase of it that you think might jeopardize the security of the Nation, have no hesitation in asking us to go off the record for a moment, and you can tell us what you wish.
Secretary RUSK. Thank you, sir, I am at your disposal.
What could Mr. Rusk say about a supposed loner who killed JFK all by himself that there would be “a very grave difficulty about publication” of these words to the American people? Now, some may say he meant ongoing things the JFK administration were working on and relationships with other countries might be what he meant, but what does that have to do with LHO being the sole assassin as the WC was claiming? Furthermore, notice Chief Justice (CJ) Earl Warren reply to him. Why would anything relating to a 'loner' "jeopardize the security of the Nation" as Warren says? What information could Mr. Rusk be giving about LHO that would “jeopardize the security of the nation?" Does this make any sense to you?
In the same vein, notice how Warren says that all the evidence given to them will be made available to the American people, but what he did not mention is the tons of evidence that would be hidden until 2039. I wonder why? Why is this necessary if a man acting alone did in fact kill JFK?
Former CIA Director Allen Dulles then makes a suggestion that leads to an OFF the RECORD discussion to see what he may say, and then they come back assured in the belief the American people will NOT hear anything they don’t want us to hear.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chief Justice, could I make a suggestion in that connection?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Would it be feasible to have a discussion here of the points that are vital from the point of view of our record, and so forth, and maybe a little informal conversation afterward to cover the other points.
The CHAIRMAN. We will have a recess for a few moments then.
Mr. DULLES. I thought between the two wouldn't that be easier than put the two together.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
What was the point of calling him then? Why was he called at all as I can’t see how he would know anything about a loner and it was determined within twenty-four hours that NO other country was involved in this assassination, but let’s read on.
Soon after the above exchange Mr. Rusk makes a great point that I want to share with WC defenders out there who may read this.
Mr. RANKIN. In your opinion, was there any substantial interest or interests of the Soviet Union which would have been advanced by the assassination of President Kennedy?
Secretary RUSK. I would first have to say on a question of that sort that it is important to follow the evidence. It is very difficult to look into the minds of someone else, and know what is in someone else's mind.
I have seen no evidence that would indicate to me that the Soviet Union considered that it had an interest in the removal of President Kennedy or that it was in any way involved in the removal of President Kennedy…Now, standing back and trying to look at that question objectively despite the ideological differences between our two great systems, I can't see how it could be to the interest of the Soviet Union to make any such effort.
Since I have become Secretary of State I have seen no evidence of any policy of assassination of leaders of the free world on the part of the Soviets, and our intelligence community has not been able to furnish any evidence pointing in that direction. I am sure that I would have known about such bits of evidence had they existed but I also made inquiry myself to see whether there was such evidence, and received a negative reply.
The first point I’d like to make is notice how he said “It is very difficult to look into the minds of someone else, and know what is in someone else's mind”, but this is exactly what the WC did and what WC defenders do today in regards to LHO and his actions. They constantly seem to know, according to them of course, why he did this or that and it always leads them to saying this is why he was guilty. How could they know what was going on in LHO’s mind? They could not of course know so this is just a weak attempt to cast aspersions on him because they have NO evidence to show that he was guilty as claimed.
He then goes on to say he believes the Soviet Union had nothing to do with JFK’s death and why would they since the relationship between Washington, D.C. and Moscow was becoming better than ever? Why did the Secretary of State for the United States think the Soviet system of Communism was a “great system” by the way? Why would he think the oppressive Communist system that we were spending billions of dollars on combating was a “great system?” Doesn’t this sound odd to you?
Secretary Rusk would make other comments that I found both odd and ironic since these reflected things the WC (and of course FBI) did NOT do in the course of their investigation into the assassination of JFK.
Secretary RUSK. …But one of the great questions in my mind at that time was just that question, could some foreign government somehow be involved in such an episode. I realized that were this so this would raise the gravest issues of war and peace, but that nevertheless it was important to try to get at the truth--to the answer to that question--wherever that truth might lead…so when I got back to Washington I put myself immediately in touch with the processes of inquiry on that point, and as Secretary of State had the deepest possible interest in what the truthful answer to those questions would be, because it would be hard to think of anything more pregnant for our foreign relations than the correct answer to that question.
Now they did come to premature conclusions [the Soviets], in my judgment, about what this event was and what it meant in terms of who might have been responsible for it--and ideological effect has crept into that.
This is laughable when we reflect on what the FBI, CIA and the WC did in regards to this case as NONE of them followed the evidence to the truth as Mr. Rusk said. He even said, “…wherever that truth may lead…” and again we know from this series and the great research of so many over the last fifty years that the WC did NOT do this. Mr. Rusk also felt the Soviets came to a “premature conclusion”, but he had no such admonishments for the Dallas Police Department (DPD) who supposedly solved the case in an HOUR AND TWENTY ONE MINUTES or the FBI who supposedly solved the case in anywhere from one day to a week (their report was finalized on November 29, 1963) however. Why NOT? How could anyone or any government rush to judgment or come to a premature conclusion faster than these two did? Also, Rusk would endorse information that would appear within twenty-four hours in the national Media about NO conspiracy being involved. Was this his version of searching for the truth? It sounds like the FBI and WC's to me.
Mr. Rankin than asks Secretary Rusk a series of questions that should have been asked of CIA Director John McCone or FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH).
Mr. RANKIN. There has been some suggestion that possibly the leadership of the Soviet Union would not have been politically interested in the death of the President but possibly a distant wing of the Party might have been so involved. Can you give us any light on that, Mr. Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. By suggestion you mean rumor?
Mr. RANKIN. In the newspapers, and things of that kind, rumor.
Secretary RUSK. I haven't been able to put a rational structure behind that possibility. If there are dissident elements their primary problem is within the Soviet Union… I don't quite see how the elimination of the President of the United States could contribute to that I would also suppose that in their kind of system such elements would be under pretty close supervision and surveillance and they would have limited opportunities for the kind of action that would be organized in a way in this direction, although that is a matter of some speculation.
Mr. RANKIN. How could you tell us in regard to Cuba in the same general way, your opinion and knowledge of any information or credible evidence?
Secretary RUSK. Well, I would again repeat that the overriding consideration is to make every possible effort to find evidence and follow the evidence to wherever it leads. I think it is, at least for me, more difficult to try to enter into the minds of the present leadership in Cuba than, perhaps, even of the present leadership of the Soviet Union. We have had very few contacts, as the Commission knows, with the present Government of Cuba. But again, I have seen no evidence that seems to point in that direction.
Precisely Mr. Rusk, why is he asking YOU these questions instead of asking McCone or JEH about these things since they were supposedly “investigating” this assassination and gathering evidence? One would have thought in 1964 that they were following the evidence too “no matter where it lead”, but now in 2014 we know that is a crock as they ONLY followed it to LHO and LHO alone. Even if there was evidence pointing in the direction of Cuba or the Soviet Union would Mr. Rusk have been shown it by the FBI and CIA?
They then discuss the possibility of evidence showing a foreign government being involved in JFK’s assassination.
Mr. RANKIN. There was another statement in the paper apparently purporting to be official that one of the Commissioners asked me to ask about and that was the Washington Post, Sunday, November 24, 1963, which was quoted by the Commissioner as, "Today in Washington State Department officials said they have no evidence indicating involvement of any foreign power in the assassination."
Do you know anything about that or can you give us any information?
Secretary RUSK. That was the view which we took at the time in consultation with the investigative agencies. We did not then have evidence of that sort nor do we now, and the implications of suggesting evidence in the absence of evidence would have been enormous.
Representative FORD. I don't understand that.
Secretary RUSK. Well, for us to leave the impression that we had evidence that we could not describe or discuss, when in fact we didn't have the evidence on a matter of such overriding importance could have created a very dangerous situation in terms of----
Representative FORD. Wouldn't it have been just as effective to say no comment?
Secretary RUSK. Well, unfortunately, under the practices of the press, no comment would have been taken to confirm that there was evidence. I mean, that would have been the interpretation that many would have put upon no comment.
But, Mr. Ford, I think the key thing is that at the time that statement was made we did not have such evidence. I mean, this was a factual statement at that time.
Of course what is NOT being asked or discussed is if there was evidence pointing to DOMESTIC involvement in the assassination. Furthermore, the issue of whether the State Department had evidence or not of a foreign government’s involvement does NOT mean there was NO evidence of this, but rather simply means Mr. Rusk did NOT know of any. There is a big difference between the two. The way in which it was published made it sound like there was NO evidence of a foreign country being involved since there was NO evidence showing that NOW and in the future since it did NOT happen. This is not what Rusk is saying here though. Thus, this was a false statement meant to mislead the American people IMO since it did NOT say they would CONTINUE to investigate this possibility.
Also, as was discussed earlier in regard to the Soviet Union it could have been simply an “element” of a foreign country (extremist group, intelligence group, etc…) that was involved and NOT the whole government. The same is true for us, I don’t think anyone would reasonably argue the WHOLE U.S. government was involved, but rather they would say elements or parts of it might have been.
Gerald Ford then asked a very pertinent question that ties in with my point about knowing about evidence and there being or not being any evidence.
Representative FORD. But, at that time, this was 2 days after the assassination, you really didn't have much time to evaluate all of the evidence.
Secretary RUSK. Well, that is correct. But if the evidence or the known facts had changed certainly that type of statement would have changed. In other words, such statements are based upon the situation as known at the time the statements are made.
Representative FORD. This statement then appeared in the Sunday morning, November 24 issue or edition of the Washington Post. That was a statement issued certainly on the 23d of November because it had to be in order to get in the Sunday edition of the Post. So, that is 24 hours after the assassination.
Secretary RUSK. That is correct, sir, and this statement was made on the basis of such information as was available to us in the first 24 hours.
This is a very good question and it highlights the point that the American public was being carefully mislead by the U.S. Government and the Media. How in the world could the State Department or any other department or agency know for sure within 24 hours that there was “no evidence indicating involvement of any foreign power in the assassination?” It is true they may NOT have uncovered it yet or determined there was none, but you can’t know within 24 hours something of this magnitude for sure as the headline made it seem. This was to mislead the American people and the world about what really happened to JFK. I give kudos to Gerald Ford for highlighting this folly for us. Yes, he moved the wound when he shouldn’t have, but in quite a few cases Gerald Ford asked questions like this when no one else would (save for Allen Dulles on a number of occasions or Senator Richard Russell on a few occasions) and showed the folly of this whole affair and work of the conspirators in action.
Secretary Rusk is then asked a question about who would have been responsible for that information making it into the newspapers.
Mr. RANKIN. I was also asked to inquire whether that was an official statement if under your responsibility or if you could tell me who would be responsible for it?
Secretary RUSK. Well, I would have to check the actual source of the statement. But I would have no present doubt that it was an officer of the Department who was authorized to make that and for which I would be fully responsible.
Secretary Rusk took full responsibility for this ridiculous and misleading comment too. They should have said it as only been 24 hours or so and we are still investigating and considering all options, but it is clear that the marching orders regarding LHO being the sole assassin had come down quickly by this comment.
The topic of conversation than moved to the issue of an “international conspiracy” being added to the indictment by the Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr, and whether this was correct or not. Notice the STANDARD they place on evidence for this being included.
Mr. DULLES. There was some evidence presented here quite recently when the district attorney of Dallas was here with regard to a message from Washington, from the White House to the attorney general of Texas, who was also here the other day before the Commission, on this point: A rumor had reached Washington that in preparing the indictment there, they were going to put in some reference to an international conspiracy. As a matter of fact, when that was run down it was not a correct rumor. But when that reached Washington, the reaction was rather strong and I think entirely understandable, and word went back to Dallas from high quarters that that should not, hoped that that would not be included in the legal proceedings and papers that were filed in connection with the assassination of the President and charging----
Mr. RANKIN. Unless there was evidence to support it.
Mr. DULLES. Unless there was evidence to support it. And the district attorney, who was here, testified that he had never considered adding that into it, putting that in the proceedings because if you put it in you had to prove it, and it is not necessary at all. All you need to do is allege a murder with intent, and so forth, and so on. So that that was all pretty well cleared up.
Mr. DULLES. Did that ever reach your attention, did you know anything about that?
Secretary RUSK. I don't personally recall that particular message… I didn't arrive until----…Until the early morning of the 23d.
Mr. CHAYES. I may be able to supply some information to the Commission on this point because during the night of the 22d when we were examining the data in my office, the files, I did receive a call from Mr. Katzenbach who said that they had heard at the Justice Department, that there was a possibility that this kind of an element would get into the indictment, and said that--I can't remember the exact words that he used--but he conveyed to me that he regarded this as not very good, in the absence of evidence to support it, and said that he was seeking to have Mr. Saunders, who is the U.S. attorney in Dallas, admitted to the councils of the State officials there so that they could discuss these matters as time went on. And that he would try to, I don't know exactly again what he said, but that he would try to see that in the absence of evidence no such allegation was made in the indictment.
Representative FORD. Would you check, however, Mr. Secretary, to see if there is anything further in this regard?
Secretary RUSK. Yes; I will.
Isn’t it funny and ironic that they said this was not included since there was NO evidence to support it when they would then do the same thing to LHO when there was NO evidence to support those charges either? Furthermore, the complexity of finding evidence for a foreign government’s involvement is much greater than finding evidence on one person, so why was the plug pulled so fast on this when it had only been such a short period of time? Again, we see the marching orders of the conspiracy in play here in this matter.
They would end the testimony with this question.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, will you tell us whether you know of any credible evidence to show or establish or tending to show any conspiracy either domestic or foreign involved in the assassination of President Kennedy?
Secretary RUSK. No; I have no evidence that would point in that direction or to lead me to a conclusion that such a conspiracy existed.
Was the Secretary of State the best person to ask about this? Despite his earlier comments about getting at the truth no matter where it lead this does NOT tell us if he had an ACTIVE INVESTIGATION into the assassination going on. If not, how would he know if there was any credible evidence pointing to a foreign or domestic conspiracy? Furthermore, if it was domestic in nature this would probably make it even harder to find out since the groups who were doing the investigation were considered culpable by the WC themselves, so why would they pass on evidence of their possible involvement to the State Department or anyone else? This really solves nothing to ask Mr. Rusk this question.
The director of the CIA, John McCone, would be called before the WC too. He was accompanied by CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms as well. They were asked about LHO being tied to the CIA in any way and here is what they said.
Mr. RANKIN. Without disclosing something that might be a security matter, could you tell us how that is handled in a general way in the Agency?
Mr. McCONE. Mr. Helms, who is directly responsible for that division of the Agency's activities as a Deputy Director, might explain. Would that be permissible?
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Helms, did you have anything to do on behalf of your Agency with determining whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was acting in any of the capacities I have described in my questions to Mr. McCone?
Mr. HELMS. Yes; I did.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you did in that regard?
Mr. HELMS. On Mr. McCone's behalf, I had all of our records searched to see if there had been any contacts at any time prior to President Kennedy's assassination by anyone in the Central Intelligence Agency with Lee Harvey Oswald. We checked our card files and our personnel files and all our records.
Now, this check turned out to be negative. In addition I got in touch with those officers who were in positions of responsibility at the times in question to see if anybody had any recollection of any contact having even been suggested with this man. This also turned out to be negative, so there is no material in the Central Intelligence Agency, either in the records or in the mind of any of the individuals, that there was any contact had or even contemplated with him.
This is all well and good but remember that Allen Dulles said the CIA would NEVER admit anyone worked for them--even while under oath. So, this testimony really means nothing in the big scheme of things. Gerald Ford would then ask if a member of the Commission staff had an opportunity to view the file on LHO. Commission Exhibit (CE) 870 is a affidavit from CIA Director John McCone denying that there was any connection between LHO and the CIA.
CE 870: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0446b.jpg
Representative FORD. Has a member of the Commission staff had full access to your files on Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. HELMS. He has, sir.
Representative FORD. They have had the opportunity to personally look at the entire file?
Mr. HELMS. We invited them to come out to our building in Langley and actually put the file on the table so that they could examine it.
The CHAIRMAN. I was personally out there, too, and was offered the same opportunity. I did not avail myself of it because of the time element, but I was offered the same opportunity.
Who was this staff member? What did they see? Who knows since it was all kept secret. CJ Warren’s comment is worthless and shows the interest he really had in finding the truth in this case as he claimed he was offered to look at the CIA’s file on LHO, but couldn’t “avail himself of it because of the time element.” What kind of nonsense is this? You are heading a commission that has been tasked with learning the truth in the murder of a JFK and you can’t find the time to look at a CIA file on the person you are going to say did it? What?
Mr. RANKIN. By that you mean the representatives of the Commission were able to satisfy themselves that they had all of the information for the benefit of the Commission without disclosing matters that would be a threat to security; is that right?
Mr. HELMS. It is my understanding that they were satisfied.
Now it is a “they” that were satisfied. Who were these staff members and why were they satisfied that LHO was NOT involved with the CIA in anyway? Director McCone would then be asked if he knew of any evidence that showed there was a conspiracy involved in the murder of JFK.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, if I may return to you, I will now ask you if you have any credible information that you know of or evidence causing you to believe that there is any or was any conspiracy either domestic or foreign in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. McCONE. No; I have no information, Mr. Rankin, that would lead me to believe or conclude that a conspiracy existed.
So the total lack of evidence showing it was LHO was NOT evidence that there was a conspiracy to him? As was said by quite a few to Robert Kennedy--if you wanted to find something out in the CIA the LAST person you went to was John McCone as he was considered an outsider, and thus, things were kept from him. Therefore, this answer is NO surprise for that reason and the reason IF the CIA had elements involved they would NEVER admit this to the WC.
He would continue with this statement.
Representative FORD. Did the CIA make an investigation of this aspect of the assassination?
Mr. McCONE. We made an investigation of all developments after the assassination which came to our attention which might possibly have indicated a conspiracy, and we determined after these investigations, which were made promptly and immediately, that we had no evidence to support such an assumption.
How could he know about the attempts on Castro’s life and NOT think this was important enough to mention to the WC? Ditto the Chicago and Tampa attempts that were foiled at the last minute? How could he NOT think there was a conspiracy? Of course he did NOT say that, did he? He simply said they did NOT find any evidence of a conspiracy and that is NOT hard when you are NOT looking for any.
Notice how he uses the correct term for LHO’s supposed trip to Mexico City.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, your Agency made a particular investigation in connection with any allegations about a conspiracy involving the Soviet Union or people connected with Cuba, did you not?
Mr. McCONE. Yes, we did. We made a thorough, a very thorough, investigation of information that came to us concerning an alleged trip that Oswald made to Mexico City during which time he made contact with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in an attempt to gain transit privileges from Mexico City to the Soviet Union via Havana. We investigated that thoroughly.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you also include in your statement that you found no evidence of conspiracy in all of that investigation?
Mr. McCONE. That is correct.
Alleged trip indeed. So someone IMPERSONATING LHO was not a tip off that a conspiracy was involved? Again, IF parts of the CIA were involved in the murder of JFK, even “rogue” elements, the CIA could NEVER admit this, thus, the ruling had to be LHO acted alone. Richard Helms even said this about the case not being closed then or the future.
Representative FORD. In other words, the case isn't closed.
Mr. HELMS. It is not closed as far as we are concerned.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be true, Mr. Helms, even after the Commission completed its report, you would keep the matter open if there was anything new that developed in the future that could be properly presented to the authorities?
Mr. HELMS. Yes. I would assume the case will never be closed.
It sure seems CLOSED based on what the government has done in regard to this case, doesn’t it? What was the last thing the CIA investigated in this case? LHO’s alleged trip to Mexico City I’m sure. If it isn’t closed, then why is there NO activity on it? Surely over the last fifty plus years some leads had to have come to the CIA, but we see they have NOT made any announcements about them to us. Why NOT?
Later in his testimony Director McCone would say LHO did go to Mexico City (remember he used the word “alleged” before in regard to this trip), but that this had NOTHING to do with the assassination in the CIA’s view.
Representative FORD. Did the Central Intelligence Agency investigate any aspects of Oswald's trip to Mexico?
Mr. McCONE. Yes; we did.
Representative FORD. Can you give us any information on that?
Mr. McCONE. Yes; we were aware that Oswald did make a trip to Mexico City and it was our judgment that he was there in the interest of insuring transit privileges and that he made contact with the Cuban Embassy while he was there.
We do not know the precise results of his effort, but we assumed, because he returned to the United States, he was unsuccessful. We have examined to every extent we can and using all resources available to us every aspect of his activity and we could not verify that he was there for any other purpose or that his trip to Mexico was in any way related to his later action in assassinating President Kennedy.
Why did he change his view here? Now he claims LHO “did make the trip to Mexico City” whereas before he said it was an “alleged” trip. There is no evidence showing the real LHO was there as the photograph and voice recording presented do NOT depict LHO’s likeness or voice on them. What is he basing this comment on? It would seem like he relied on "assumptions" to me in this area.
We will get into that in our next installment of this series, but for now we again see evidence in the WC’s twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits that shows they did NOT consider all the possibilities that could have happened nor did they follow the evidence “no matter where it lead”, thus, their conclusion cannot be the correct one. It is again sunk.