[104-10423-10337.pdf — page 7]
in view of the fact that we have practically-we have all the reports, he says we have all the reports that are in that file, and it just seems like thrashing old straw to go over it and over it again.Mr. MCCLOY. Do we have copies of all these telegrams that are in here from the Embassy?Mr. BELMONT. You are looking at-Mr. MCCLOY. Not Embassy; here is one from Mexico. Do we have that? We don't have these in our files, for example.Mr. BELMONT. This is subsequent to the assassination. You see your area of interest at this point is information, all information we had prior to the assassination. I did not remove from this file the items that started to come in subsequent to the assassination, you see,Mr. MCCLOY. My feeling is that somebody on the Commission should examine that file. I can't come to any other conclusion after reading it all, because I don't know what is in it, what is in our record, and what is in that file. There is a good bit of material there that is narrative, which I think would be relevant. Certainly, I don't believe we can be possibly criticized for deleting or not pro- ducing a file which contains the type of information that you are speaking of. We are just as interested in protecting the security of your investigative proс- esses as you are. But I don't think that when it is on the record that we have this file, that may contain material that was not in our files, and we are given the opportunity to examine it, without disclosing these confidential matters that we ought not to have somebody go through it.Mr. DULLES. I agree with that but I think we could save time if we checked off first what we have already and that would cut out about half of that file probably.Mr. MCCLOY. I think in a rapid glance through it, I think just about half of it.The CHAIRMAN. Well, suppose you do that then, get those and let's see. All right, proceed, Mr. Stern.Mr. STERN. I think perhaps we ought to leave the entire matter of the file then until we can give you the information.The CHAIRMAN. That is right.Mr. STERN. May we admit for the purposes of the record this list at this time, Mr. Chief Justice, which has been marked No. 834?The CHAIRMAN. Yes. There are no security matters in this?Mr. BELMONT. No, sir.The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted as Exhibit No. 834.(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 834 for identification, was received in evidence.)Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, can you identify this letter dated February 6 with an attached affidavit which has been marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 835?(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 835, for identification.)Mr. BELMONT. Yes; this is a letter dated February 6, 1964, to the Commission from the FBI to which is attached an affidavit by Director J. Edgar Hoover.Mr. STERN. What is the subject?Mr. BELMONT. Stating flatly that Lee Harvey Oswald was never an informant of the FBI.Mr. DULLES. Would you define informant. Obviously in the sense he knew some information as previously indicated from the previous interviews. I mean for the record, would you just define what you mean by an informant in this sense?Mr. BELMONT. An informant in this sense is an individual who has agreed to cooperate with the FBI and to furnish information to the FBI either for or with- out payment.Mr. STERN. Thank you.Mr. BELMONT. This would not, of course, include the cooperative citizen to whom we go, and who frequently and frankly discloses any information in his possession, but rather someone who joins an organization or seeks out informa- tion at the direction and instance of the FBI relative to subversive or criminal.