Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 51]
it outweighs the public interest, and such public disclosure would reveal - -(A) an intelligence agent whose identity currently requires protection;(B) an intelligence source or method which is currently utilized, by the United States Government and which has not been officially disclosed, the disclosure of which would interfere with the conduct of intelligence activities; or(C) Any other matter currently relating to the military defense, intelligence operations or conduct of foreign relations of the United States, the disclosure of which would demonstrably impair the national security of the United States;(2) the public disclosure of the assassination record would reveal the name or identity of a living person who provided confidential information to the United States and would pose a substantial risk to that person;(3) the public disclosure of the assassination record could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and that invasion of privacy is so substantial that it outweighs the public interest;(4) the public disclosure of the assassination record would compromise the existence of an understanding of confidentiality currently requiring protection between a Government agent and a cooperating individual or a foreign government, and public disclosure would be so harmful that it outweighs the public interest; or(5) the public disclosure of the assassination record would reveal a security or protective procedure currently utilized, or reasonably expected to be utilized, by the Secret service or another Government agency responsible for protecting Government officials, and public disclosure would be so harmful that it outweighs the public interest.4. The Act therefore superseded the guidelines established for the Historical Review Program to the extent the Historical Review Group (HRG) is processing information related to the assassination of President Kennedy. The specific changes are as follows.a. The most basic change is that you must apply a balancing test before maintaining the classification of any information. You must balance continued classification against the public interest in the information. Therefore, the greater light disclosure of the information would shed on the assassination of the President, or on the2
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 52]
government's investigation into that assassination, the moreserious must be the need to continue to withhold theinformation for classification to be maintained.b. HR 70-14.e(2) states the reviewers of informationadvocating continued classification of information will bearthe burden identifying any damage that disclosure couldreasonably be expected to cause to the national security.The Act defines that burden as one of "clear and convincingevidence." Further, the Act changes "reasonably could beexpected to cause" to "demonstrably." Therefore, unless ashowing is made by clear and convincing evidence thatrelease of the information would demonstrably impair thenational security, the information must be declassified.c. HR 70-14.e(4) addresses the standards formaintaining the classification of foreign governmentinformation, the identity of a foreign source, andintelligence sources and methods. It notes that ExecutiveOrder 12,356 presumes that this information is classified.Under the Act, with respect to these categories ofclassified information found with records related to theassassination of President Kennedy, you must still finddemonstrable damage by clear and convincing evidenceregardless of the presumption in the Executive Order.Further, with respect to intelligence sources and methods,the Act requires that they--(1) be either currently utilized or reasonablyexpected to be utilized by the U.S. Government; andand(2) that they not have been officially disclosed;(3) that their disclosure would interfere with theconduct of intelligence activities.All of these factors must be met by a showing of clear andconvincing evidence.d. HR 70-14.e(4) also discusses CIA personnel andorganizational information. The Act only permits thecontinued withholding of the identity of an "intelligenceagent" if, by clear and convincing evidence, it can be shownthe person's identity requires protection. Further, the Actdoes not permit the withholding of organizationalinformation unless, by clear and convincing evidence, it canbe shown the disclosure of the organizational data woulddemonstrably impair the national security.e. HR 70-14.e(7) states that the HRG will determinewhether information warrants continued protection pursuantto statutory or other requirements. The Act supersedes allother statutory authority for withholding information except
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 53]
for a provision of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with tax return information. This means the Act takes precedence over 50 U.S.C. § 403(d) (3) and § 403g, as well as the Privacy Act, when determining whether to release records related to the assassination of President Kennedy. The Act also makes no provision for protecting information on the basis of executive privilege, such as deliberative process and attorney-client communications.5. Certain categories of information may fall into more than one of the grounds set forth in Section 6 of the Act. We recommend that you review all of the grounds when determining whether to release or withhold specific information. For example, a human intelligence source may fall into grounds (1)(A) ("intelligence agent"), (1)(B) ("intelligence source"), (2) ("living person who provided confidential information to the United States"), and/or (4) ("understanding of confidentiality currently requiring protection between a Government agent and a cooperating individual"). At this point, we do not know how the Assassination Records Review Board will interpret each of these grounds. Therefore, if you determine the standards of the Act are met to permit withholding of certain information, you should assert as many grounds as may arguably apply as authority for that withholding.6. Although the Act severely limits what information may be withheld from disclosure, it may be possible to protect information not expressly covered by the Act. However, such information may be withheld only with the personal authorization of the President. When the President signed the Act, he issued a statement that included the following:> My authority to protect [executive branch> deliberations, law enforcement information of the> executive branch, and national security information]> comes from the Constitution and cannot be limited by> statute. Although only the most extraordinary> circumstances would require postponement of the> disclosure of documents for reasons other than those> recognized in the bill, I cannot abdicate my> constitutional responsibility to take such action when> necessary.7. The Act provides individuals the ability under the Administrative Procedures Act to challenge in court final decisions of the Assassination Records Board. We can expect, then, court challenges to the Board's decisions to uphold any of our determinations that certain information meets the criteria for postponement of release. Additionally, as you know, there are FOIA litigations for this same material. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated in court pleadings and orally that he wants the court to review our redactions not under FOIA standards, but under the standards of the Act. Thus, you should apply the Act's standards knowing your judgments may be questioned by the Board.
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 54]
subsequent court challenges to the Board's action, and the FOIAcases.8. If you have any questions concerning the application of   the Act to your review of the assassination records, please call   me on secure extension 76105.![signature of Robert J. Eatinger, Jr.]Robert J Eatinger, Jr.5
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 55]
DCI/OGC/RJE:ig 76105/15 Dec 1992OGC-92-53256Distribution:1 - Addressee1 - DO/IRO1 - DI/IRO1 - DS&T/IRO1 - DA/IRO1 - DCI/IRO1 - PCS/PGG1 - ERR1 - DPH1 - Lit file1 - EC1 - WGJ1 - RJE Soft file1 - OGC Chrono1 - RJE Signer
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 56]
# AGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLYPRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTOGC-94-5291619 September 1994MEMORANDUM FOR: David P. HolmesDeputy General CounselFROM: Robert J. Eatinger. Jr.Assistant General CounselLitigation Division, OGCSUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority With Respectto JFK Assassination Records1. Per your request, I have attached a copy of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (ARCA), Pub. L. 102-526, 106 Stat. 3443-3458, reprinted at 44 U.S.C. § 2107 note. For your convenience, I have highlighted the pertinent provisions that will aid in responding to an inquiry regarding the statute's effect on the DCI's statutory authority to protect intelligence sources and methods.2. The clear language and intent of the law is to supersede statutes that prohibit disclosure of information, except for some irrelevant subject areas, such as tax records. The statute provides that "it shall take precedence over any other law (except section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code), judicial decision construing such law, or common law doctrine that would otherwise prohibit" the disclosure of information subject to the Act. ARCA § 11(a). This language, taken with the provisions discussed below which limit the intelligence sources and methods that may be protected and set a strict procedural scheme by which information is to be reviewed under the ARCA, effectively supersedes the DCI's National Security Act authority with respect to intelligence sources and methods information subject to the ARCA.3. Section 6 of the ARCA provides the grounds for which the release of information may be "postponed." The statute contemplates that all information will eventually be released. Indeed, it specifies that all information will be made available to the public no later than 25 years after the passage of the ARCA (which occurred in October 1992) unless the president certifies that continued postponement is necessary. ARCA § 4(g) (2) (D). With respect to intelligence-related information, ARCA allows postponement if:"(1) the threat to ... intelligence operations ... is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest, and such public disclosure would reveal--PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTAGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 57]
# AGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLYPRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTSUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority With Respect to JFK Assassination Records(A) an intelligence agent whose identity *currently* requires protection;(B) an intelligence source or method which is currently utilized, or reasonably expected to be utilized, by the United States Government and which has not been officially disclosed, the disclosure of which would interfere with the conduct of intelligence activities; or(C) any other matter currently relating to ... intelligence operations ... the disclosure of which would demonstrably impair the national security of the United States."ARCA § 6(1) (Emphasis added.)4. The originating agency is to make the first review to identify information that meets the standards for postponement. ARCA § 4(c) (2) (D) (i). For CIA, this effort is being undertaken by the Historical Review Group, in consultation with the Directorate of Operations and other appropriate Agency components. Information the originating agencies identify for postponement must be transmitted to the Review Board. ARCA § 4(c) (2) (E). The Review Board "shall consider and render decisions on a determination by a Government office to seek to postpone the disclosure of assassination records." ARCA § 7(i)(1). Specifically, the "Review Board shall consider and render decisions on ... whether an assassination record or particular information in a record qualifies for postponement of disclosure under the Act." ARCA § 7(i) (2) (B).5. If the Review Board determines to order the disclosure of information that the originating agency felt met the criteria for postponement, it "shall notify the head of the originating body of its determination and publish a copy of the determination in the Federal Register within 14 days after the determination is made." ARCA § 9(c)(4)(A). If the information contained in an assassination record is "obtained or developed *solely* within the executive branch, the President shall have the *sole* and *nondelegable* authority to require the disclosure or postponement of ... the information under the standards set forth in Section 6." ARCA § 9(d) (1) (emphasis added). The President's decision must be certified to the Review Board within 30 days of the Review Boards determination. *Id.* Records postponed by the President must be re-reviewed every 5 years. ARCA § 9(d) (2).2PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTAGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 58]
13-00000AGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLYPRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTSUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority With Respect to JFKAssassination Records6. I would be happy to discuss this further if you so desire. You might also want to contact John Pereira (x30373)   since he has met with some or all of the Review Board members.![Signature of Robert J. Eatinger, Jr.]Robert J. Eatinger, Jr.Attachment3PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTAGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 59]
SUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority w/Respectto JFK Assassination RecordsOGC-94-52916DCI/OGC/RJEatinger:76105 (19 Sept 94)Original - Addressee w/attach) (hand delivered)1 - OGC Registry (w/attach)1 - Lit File1 - RBB (OGC/ILD)1 - C/HRG (J.Pereira-404 Ames)1 - RJE - Soft File (w/attach)1 - RJE - Signer1 - PDP1 - KK -fyi1 - PAS-fyi
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 60]
13-00000![photo]
[104-10337-10014.pdf — page 62]
# SECRETBritish1. (S) The BOARD wanted to release the 1963 British Security Service's (BSS) interview of the spouse of a West-East defector (Sloboda). The BSS advised the Station that release would be a violation of *privacy rights in the UK*. The BOARD agreed that the document was "*not intrinsic* to assassination story" and that the document could be postponed until 2017.2. (S) Another British document in the collection provided information that as of 1982 "KOSTIKOV . . . was posted in Beirut in 1978 . . . and may still be there." (The author EPSTEIN in *Legend* claims KOSTIKOV was Lee Harvey Oswald's KGB case officer in Mexico City.) The British desk accepted the release of the one pertinent paragraph (one of five paragraphs in the document), and the Board agreed to postpone until 2017 the release of all other text and source originating information.3. (S) The BOARD learned of the existence of a British document that the CIA possessed from the BOARD's examination of FBI files. One member of the BOARD reviewed the entire document and declared one portion of the document as relevant to the JFK assassination. The four-page section of the document regarding KGB Active Measures was released in full and further noted that it was from a foreign government that specifically requested not to be identified.Canadian(S) A report received through Canadian liaison channels on West-East defectors (Martin and Mitchell) is in the collection. As consultations with the Canadian desk were underway, the BOARD determined the document as not believed relevant and postponed its release until 2017.Dutch(S) The BOARD wanted to release two attachments (teltap transcripts) to a dispatch from the Dutch Station. The matter was coordinated with the Dutch desk, the Dutch Station, and the Director General of the Dutch National Security Service. As a result, translation substitutions provide the information from intercepted conversations on the topics of "Mr. Lee (sic)" and Richard Gibson, but redactions obscure the source of the transcripts, according to guidelines in a letter from the service. Release of the redacted portions is postponed until 2017.
[104-10338-10005.pdf — page 0]
2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992# ROUTING AND RECORD SHEETSUBJECT: (Optional)Coordination: JFK Assassination Document (FBI referral)FROM: Barry Harrelson, ReviewerCSI/HRG402 AmesTO: (Officer designation, room number, and building)|                        | DATE RECEIVED | FORWARDED | OFFICIAL'S INITIALS | COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.) || ---------------------- | ------------- | --------- | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- || 1. DCI / FIO 7E 12 OHB | 3/29/93       |           | Me                  | Becky,                                                                                                  |For your reviews,FBI memorandum dated 12/23/63 (Brennan to Sullivan) containing CIA information.We are proposing "Release-in-Full" for this document. || 2. |   |   |   |   || 3. |   |   |   |   || 4. Barry Harrelson CSI/HRG |   |   |   |   || 5. 402 Ames |   |   |   |   || 6. |   |   |   |   || 7. |   |   |   |   || 8. |   |   |   |   || 9. |   |   |   |   || 10. |   |   |   |   || 11. |   |   |   |   || 12. |   |   |   |   || 13. |   |   |   |   || 14. |   |   |   |   || 15. |   |   |   |   |Barryno alyection tofull release ofThis documentBecky RavyFORM 610 USE PREVIOUS1-92 EDITIONS
[104-10338-10005.pdf — page 1]
# 13-00000OPTIONAL PORM NO. 10MAY 1963 EDITIONGIA DEN, BEG. NO. 272016-106UNITED STATES GO ERNMENT# MemorandumTO : Mr. W. C. SullivanFROM : Mr. D. J. Brennan, Jr.DATE: 12/23/63SUBJECT: RELATIONS WITH CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) Lee OswaldReference is made to memorandum dated 12/19/63, from Mr. Brennan to Mr. Sullivan. Pursuant to instructions, Agent Papich met with John McCone, Director, CIA, on 12/23/63, to confront the CIA Director with false statements attributed to him by Mr. DeLoach's source. The Liaison Agent is reporting this meeting in some detail so that you may have full appreciation of all aspects.Agent Papich advised McCone that he had a piece of business which needed ironing out before the end of the year. The Agent explained that since the assassination of President Kennedy, there have been various types of stories circulated concerning the case and the evidence collected; that some of these stories could immediately be discounted; and that there was certain information received by the Bureau which very directly affected relations between the Bureau and CIA. The Agent stated that certain information had reached such proportion to be most alarming and that the Agent had requested permission from Mr. Hoover to discuss the matter with the CIA Director.McCone was then told that he was charged with being the source of information conveyed to a high Government official and to Drew Pearson in that he, McCone, had stated that CIA had uncovered a plot in Mexico City indicating that Lee Harvey Oswald had received $6,500 to assassinate President Kennedy. The Agent elaborated by stating that if this were true, McCone had endeavored to leave the impression with certain people that CIA had developed information not known to the Bureau and, in essence, made the Bureau look ridiculous. The Agent advised that if McCone had made such statements, we could only assume that he was employing vicious and underhanded tactics since he and officials of his agency fully well knew that the story concerning the $6,500 had been proved to be absolutely false. McCone's attention was directed to the Alvarado interrogation, Alvarado's admission that he had fabricated the information and the subsequent1 - Mr. Belmont1 - Mr. DeLoach1 - Mr. Sullivan1 - Mr. Branigan1 - Liaison1 - Mr. PapichNOT RECORDED 199 JAN 2 196422 DEC 31 1963
[104-10338-10005.pdf — page 2]
# 13-00000emo Mr. Brennan to Mr. SullivanRe: RELATIONS WITH CIAcorroboration of the polygraph. [^5]***SECRET***McCone was very visibly incensed and left the impression that he might at any moment ask the Agent to leave. After pausing a few moments, he made the following statements: [^6](1) He stated that he has never talked to Drew Pearson in his life; that he has never sent any kind of message to Pearson directly or indirectly and that he does not have any intention of communicating with Pearson. He briefly referred to the fact that he has been the target of attacks by Pearson, one of these occurring within the last two weeks.(2) With regard to the "$6,500 story," McCone advised that as soon as the original report was received from his people in Mexico City, he contacted President Johnson and informed him of the development. He explained to the President that this was a matter which required intensive interrogation of Alvarado and that CIA had coordinated very closely with the FBI. He told the President that Alvarado would be kept in a safe house by CIA until the FBI was satisfied that all necessary investigative action had taken place. [^5](3) McCone advised that he has not been critical of the Bureau; that if he had any criticism he would confer directly with the Bureau and not get involved in malicious gossip. He commented that in connection with the Oswald case, he has encountered people who have been critical of the Bureau and the Secret Service and he, McCone, has gone to the defense of both agencies. [^5]McCone was left in an angry mood but he did retain his composure throughout. Before the Agent left, McCone inquired about the status of FBI - CIA relations in general and the Agent replied that they were satisfactory. He also asked about the Director's health which the Agent answered that the Director was in excellent health.As indicated above, no statement was made which in any way might jeopardize the security of Mr. DeLoach's sources.ACTION:For information.
[104-10338-10005.pdf — page 3]
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYCIA SPEC REGISTOLL JONS2000 10 April 1995MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. Grant P. HarmonUnit Chief, JFK TaskforceFederal Bureau of InvestigationFROM: Barry Harrelson, Senior ReviewerHistorical Review GroupCenter for the Study of IntelligenceCentral Intelligence AgencySUBJECT: Authenticity of Document1.  This is in response to your request to this office to review the attached document and advise if it is a valid Agency document or something made up using an Agency reports format and information either entirely made up or from other sources. The 3 August 1962 document purports to tie Dorothy Kilgallen, Marilyn Monroe and former Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, together with knowledge of an number of matters, including the plot to kill Castro.2.  Those Agency officers who have reviewed the document consider it to be fradulent. While the format resembles a "reports" form used in the 1960's, the substantive information and presentation is foreign to normal presentaion or collection efforts. Also, the control stamps and other administrative items are not typical of CIA reports written during the 1960's.3.  If you have any further questions in this regard, please call me directly at (703) 351-2909.![signature of Barry Harrelson]Barry HarrelsonBH:gbFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY