Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 23]
TOP SECRET1 with the Israelis, where you had conflict of U.S. interests --2 Mr. Angleton. Give me an example of what you regard3 as a conflict.4 Mr. Miller. Can you thing of any?5 Mr. Angleton. You are the one who is posing it. I think a lot of these things are illusions. But what would you regard6 as a conflict? I don't think there is a conflict regarding7 the Soviet Union or the balance of power. I don't think there8 is any question in my view --9 Senator Mathias. May I suggest Suez as a conflict that10 might have posed --11 Mr. Angleton. Which Suez are we talking about?12 Senator Mathias. The Israeli-British-French attack on Suez.13 Mr. Angleton. The U.S. Government position was that we14 had no commitments with Israel and we had no binding treaties.15 We had two allies that had just fought a war with us, and16 both of whom betrayed us. And Eden's head went with it. And that17 is very clear and well documented. The Israelis were not18 blamed because we didn't have any agreements with them, they19 had violated no agreements. The British had agreements.20 The British tried to give us a deception plan, should they21 have naval vessels in the Mediterranean, and they were there22 for a different purpose.23 Mr. Kirbow. Let me see if I can make a point on just a24 common sense level.TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 24]
TOP SECRET1 Senator Mathias. Let me follow this Suez question alittle more closely.3 That is a point at which the U.S. policy differed fromthe policy which was adopted by British and France and Israel?5 Mr. Angleton. Correct.6 Senator Mathias. And would a situation of that sort con-7 front you with difficulties in your operations because --8 Mr. Angleton. There have always been crises with them.9 Senator Mathias. And how do you resolve a crisis ofthat kind?11 Mr. Angleton You don't see the fellow for a fewdays.13 Mr. Miller. I see.14 So your method was to deal with them on those matters15 Mr. Angleton. A total neutrality of interest.16 Mr. Schwarz. Could we turn to the subject of atomictechnology?18 Mr. Kirbow. Excuse me. I think for the record we shouldmake it clear, I think Mr. Angleton has had an interview20 with the staff, and he has been made aware that a witness21 testified here under oath as to certain matters, and that thatis the approach that we are going to take now.23 Is that clear?24 Mr. Schwarz. I want to ask the question generallyfirst and then come to the other testimony.25 TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 25]
TOP SECRETMr. Angleton, has the Central Intelligence Agency directlyor indirectly transferred any atomic technology or know-how toIsrael?Mr. Angleton. From my knowledge, the answer is an abso-lute no. That would be one of those grounds that Mr. Millerwas referring to, where the Agency, in the person ofMr. John McCone, had some of the sharpest words probably in thehistory of the relationship.Mr. Schwarz. You mentioned those at lunch, and you mightjust put that on the record.Mr. Angleton I want to state that to my knowledge theIsraelis themselves never raised the question of their atomiccapability or their atomic interests, with one ortwo small exceptions, which was where there had been somebodywho had been PGed from the U.S., were he ever to get his visato come back and attend some meeting, something on thatlevel.Mr. Schwarz I want to make sure that I have askedthe question/broadly enough.Did the Agency take any steps to make availableto the Israelis any personnel who had knowledge about atomicmatters.Mr. Angleton. None whatsoever.Mr. Schwarz. And specifically with respect to a manlet's go off the record for a minute.TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 26]
# TOP SECRET(Off the record.)Mr. Schwarz. Back on the record.Do you know a scientist called Dr. Wilfred Mann?Mr. Angleton. I do.Mr. Schwarz. Does he have any knowledge of atomic mattersMr.. Angleton. Yes. He was one of the originators.Mr Schwarz. To your knowledge was he ever put in contact with any Israeli person directly or indirectly?Mr. Angleton. Not to my knowledge, never.Mr. Schwarz. Do you know a journalist called Tad Seulc?Mr. Angleton. I do.Mr. Schwarz. Did you meet with him sometime this year?Mr. Angleton. In March.Mr. Schwarz. Where did you meet him?Mr. Angleton At the house of Ben Wells.Mr. Schwarz. And did the three of you then go for dinner some place?Mr. Angleton. That is correct.Mr Schwarz. At that meeting did you discuss --Mr. Angleton. We went as Sculz's guest's somewhere to dinner.Mr. Schwarz. At that meeting did he raise with you the subject of the transfer of atomic technology from the CIA to Israel?Mr. Angleton. Yes.# TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 27]
TOP SECRETMr. Schwarz. What did he say to you?Mr. Angleton. They prefaced his remarks by stating that he was not a professional scientist, but he was a Jew, and so was his good friend Hersh. And they had some strange ESP working in which one said to the other, have you heard what I have heard and the other one said, I think I may have heard what you have heard. And then this thing went back and forth, and then it finally devolved, one said, did it have anything to do with Angleton, and the other one said yes, and it went on to where they discovered that each had had separate sources that I had been instrumental in acquiring plutonium for the Israelis, and as a follow-up to help the Israelis on their know-how by sending Dr. Mann to Israel clandestinely. And they both had their stories and they had a gentleman's agreement. And the matter was published without notifying the other.Mr. Schwarz. And what did you say in response?Mr. Angleton. My response to him was, it was wrong. But he had not identified the scientist. So, I asked him --Mr.Scharz. When you say it was wrong --Mr. Angleton. His statement was wrong.Mr. Schwarz. So you denied the story that atomic technology had been transferred to Israel?Mr. Angleton. I said, it is wrong.Mr. Schwarz. I just want to make sure what it is. ItTOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 28]
TOP SECRET1 does constitute a denial.Mr. Angleton. His story was wrong.Senator Baker. Let me ask you, Mr. Angleton, do I understand by that that you mean every material aspect of the story was wrong and incorrect?Mr. Angleton. I didn't mean quite that. I was more interested in the fact that, one, he knew Tad Szulc -- I am sorry that I knew Hersh -- and that Hersh told him that his source was the man who gave him the December 22 article, and whether he "had been set up"Senator Baker. What December 22?Mr. Angleton. That is the time they kicked off the entire furor on the past espionage thing.Senator Baker. Against American citizens?Mr. Angleton. Yes.Senator Baker. Did they do that once?Mr. Angleton. No, because neither disclosed their independent sources to the other.Senator Baker. The point I am trying to clarify for my own purposes is that the conversation you just related you said was wrong.Do I understand you to mean that every material aspect of that statement was wrong?Mr. Angleton. Yes. But I didn't know my motives on a lot of questions that I had with him. Because this was theTOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 29]
TOP SECRET1 first live human being I saw that had actually allegedlyheard from Hersh. And he thought they had been set up3 and that was the biggest agony in the Agency.4 Senator Baker. And the person who set him up --5 Angleton. Hersh told him, according to Szulc, that6 he was scared of the story, because this was his source on the7 December 22 article. And therefore he wondered aloud whether8 he had been set up.9 Senator Baker. Did he say who had been the source of the10 December 22 information?11 Mr. Angleton. Absolutely no.12 Mr. Kirbow. Off the record.13 (Off the record.)14 Mr. Schwarz. I just want to make sure, in your conversa-15 tion with Mr. Szulc as opposed to your testimony here today16 on the merits, did you deny to Mr. Szulc that you or17 the Agency had facilitated the transfer of atomic technology18 to Israel?19 Mr. Angleton. I denied it. But the conversation drifted20 rapidly, because Szulc was talking about a very great agent21 that he had in the Agency. And he was bragging about the fact22 that he had more sources than Hersh had. And then he said, do23 you know Australia?24 And I said, yes, I know Australia.25 Does the word Sydney mean anything to me?TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 30]
TOP SECRETYes, he word Sydney does mean something to me.Do you know sho is bicycling in India?And Isaid, I am afraid I am not with you.And he said, Sidney X. And Sidney X is one of our most sensitive employees who retired, and is bicycling in India. And I give this as an illustration of the cat and mouse business of this whole evening.And he said he got that from his source.Now, that man's name is Sidney Gottlieb. And he was the head of our technical services department, which means that there is a cross plant in our business. And the man who was bugging and performing all the hundreds of technical services, has access, unfortunately, to many of our operations.There is one juncture point in the business where there is a breakdown of compartmentation. And for him to indicate that he knew Gottlieb, and the sources that had been raised in my mind, since I was talking about a scientist, plutonium, atomic energy, and all these matters, that his source might be in our Technical Services Division, which, if he was, he would know everything, or could get into everything.But I didn't tell him that.In fact, I expressed little or no interest in his source other than asking him a few questions, is he Jewish, and this or that and so on.Senator Baker. Could I ask you a question at this point?TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 31]
TOP SECRETMr. Angleton. Surely.Senator Baker. What you are relating to me seems to imply that Szulc's information was very, very good on sensitive information?Mr. Angleton. No. That information, sir, would have been unclassified.Senator Baker. I am speaking more of the Sidney X Gottlieb relationship.Mr. Angleton. But he only said that he was bicycling in India. But the way he went about it, do you know Australia, do you know Sidney, do you think this, and so on -- it was that sort of thing.Senator Baker. Do you think he had a source in India?Mr. Angleton. It started to worry me, because he was talking plutonium, which was scientific. Gottlieb, before he went to that whole department of his, was transferred to Carl Duckett. And that is the reason Gottlieb left.Senator Baker. You mean he didn't want to work for Duckett?Mr. Angleton. That is part of it.And there are also questions of principle. You take it from one director -- it is lifeblood -- and get it to another director.Senator Baker. Is this the same Gottlieb who was in charge of processing the photographs that were taken in DrTOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 32]
TOP SECRETFielding's office?Mr. Angleton. His office would have been.Senator Baker. Do you know of that situation?Mr. Angleton. No, except --Senator Baker. Let me ask you this and I will turn it back to counsel.Was there any conversation in which Szulc or Hersh talked to Colby about thesematters? Did you sever get any impression that they were implying that Colby was their source?Mr. Angleton. The only thing that came up is that when I saw Colby yesterday -- which is the first time since December -- he told me that he had bought a theory of mine on Szulc, but he did not look with any misgivings on Hersh. Ile said that one year before he had seen Hersh about the submarine article, and that had Hersh been a Soviet agent, the Soviets would not have permitted the operation to take place.And I told him that he was erroneous, that to use that guide was simply not to understand what the game is all about.And when Philby was stationed in Washington he helped the FBI in working on some communications intelligence which led to the identification of Klaus Fuchs. But in spite of Philby being a Soviet agent, the Soviets were prepared to let Klaus Fuchs go down the drain rather than hurt Philby.Senator Baker. As an ultimate cover?Mr. Angleton. Precisely.TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 33]
TOP SECRETHe was a more valuable agent. If he had not been uncovered he would have been today Chief of British Intelligence.In the case of George Blake, who was in the British Secret service, he gave to the Soviets one year in advance the entire plans of our so-called Tunnel of Love, that is, the tunnel we built in Berlin -- very elaborate -- to tap all of the Soviet military lines.Now, even one year in advance, they took no preventive action in order to save George Blake.Now, what has happened since December 22 to the U.S. intelligence community, in the position that Hersh enjoys, with the prestige and the impact on the U.S. public, it stands to reason that you can't get them to give any baby talk as to what the Soviets would or would not do, when you see something that is the objective from the end of the last war to the present, and destroy the agent.Senator Baker. Do you think Hersh is a Soviet Agent?Mr. Angleton. I am not saying that he is a Soviet agent. To begin with, when I went back to see Wells, who was in counter intelligence with me in London during the war,I told him / I could not buy Szulc's article regarding Hersh, the alleged meetings and that they had certain sources and the introduction of Dr. Mann's name and so on simply didn't hold water, and something was wrong.But Dr. Mann is a suspect Soviet agent, a friend ofTOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 34]
TOP SECRETBurgess, and a friend of Philby. And the home background which is a factual thing, is only known to very few services. And for him to introduce it into this scenario gave it a taint that lifted it out of just simply gossip.llow would he ever know the name Mann?Senator Baker. That is what I was driving at, is it fair to infer from that conversation that there was an indication that Szulc had a very good source within the Agency?Mr Angleton. Either that or the way I look at it, I am prepared to admit, because of an article he wrote, in the cryptonym Easy Chair in the Oval Office of the White House.Senator Baker. Talking about the bugging situation?Mr. Angleton. That crytonym Easy Chair was the most sanctified word in the Agency. And what it dealt with was -- it was called Easy Chair for the simple reason that if the Soviets were blocked, people abroad were moving into this house or this office.Senator Baker. Off the record.(Off the record.)Mr. Angleton. But let me put it this way. He said, I called Ben Wells to see you, because I wanted a safe place in which to raise all this stuff.Mr. Schwarz. This is Szulc?Mr. Angleton. This is Szulc.TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 35]
TOP SECRETAnd in fact, I think they had been talking sometime before I arrived. And with Wells' background, the New York Times abroad, nd Szulc's time abroad, apparently --Senator Tower. Excuse me. Will you go back just a bit here? You raised a question of how did Szulc know the name of Mann and know about his association with Philby and Burgess.Mr. Angleton. Yes.Senator Tower. You raised the question but did not answer it.How do you think he could have known it?Mr. Angleton. This is what bothers me, that he is either unwitting, or has a source who has knowledge and is working for an opposition, or he has a source who is mischievously exploiting him by, who may be retired, and does know some facts, and therefore it is 10 percent true and 90 percent false.I would assume his financial situation is such that he is very hungry. I mean that is my general observation, and that he is having a rough time of saving a very lucrative contract with Penthouse for supplying X number of articles. I mean, that is my general feeling.Senator Tower. Let's go back a moment. You say that he could have come by knowledge of the Mann-Burgess-Philby relationship through an external source?TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 36]
TOP SECRET1 Mr Angleton. Yes, either witting or unwitting.2 Senator Tower. The KBG knows this, and, therefore, it3 could have come directly or indirectly from that source?4 Mr. Angleton. That is right.5 Senator Tower. That is a possibility?6 Mr. Angleton. That is a possibility. And he has some7 brains about the fact that he does have contacts -- he knows8 the Roumanian Ambassador better than anybody in Washington,9 and he knows the Poles, and he knows this. And it goes on10 and on.11 So, he is dealing with bloc people who will be reporting12 back to their headquarters very detailed -- assuming he is13 totally innocent, and given his position in Washington,14 Szulc would be a normal, witting or unwitting, channel for15 them in disinformation and for any other motive.16 So, as to whether he is himself knowing what he is17 doing, whether he is a dupe, is an outstanding question.18 But for a man who goes and socializes with the black --19 Mr. Schwarz. Did Mr. Szulc ever work for the Central20 Intelligence Agency?21 Mr Angleton. I don't know. He may have for some of22 our people in the field.23 Mr. Schwarz. Did he ever provide services?24 Mr. Angleton. I don't know.25 Mr. Schwarz. Have you heard that?TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 37]
TOP SECRETPhone (Ara 202) 544-6-0001.  Mr. Angleton. I have heard that, but I haven'tlooked at the dossier for the last ten years. He came to our attention2.  basically in connection with the leaks in the Bay of Pigs.3.  Senator Tower. Will you go back to the Szulc-Wells-4.  Angleton meeting?5.  Mr. Angleton. This basically -- the thing that began to really disturb me was, number one, his comment, as I said before6.  tha Hersh told him that the thing that really bothered him about this story was that it came fromthe same source who7.  gave him the 22nd of December, without identifying him, and the fact that when he was going through this business that he had8.  the best sources in the Agency, and that was Sidney Gottlieb, and here was a scientific allegation, plutonium and the scientist and all the rest of them.9.  And again, if he did have a live source in that area, that means he would have a live source across the board.10. When he asked me about my successor, I told him that I was not prepared to respond to that, that every new man was entitled to one free shave.11. And he says, I know your successor. And I don't think he actually mentioned the name. But in this article which has just come out he mentions him with his biographical sketch12. Senator Baker. Who was your successor?13. Mr. Angleton. Goorge Kalaris.I had never known him before.TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 38]
TOP SECRETSo obviously he was talking to me as somebody dis-affected from the Agency, et cetera. I mean that is my viewof why he was doing all this. Whereas my concerns were quitedifferent than his.Mr. Schwarz. Do you think it is possible,because ofthose different concerns, that your effort to deny the storydid not get across to Mr. Szulc?In other words, you are saying you had some concerns thatdealt with the scientist being involved, that dealt with thenewspaper source, that dealt with Easy Chair, that dealt withthe statement that maybe the December 1974 article was inaccur-ate. And he pursued all these matters with some vigor and in-terest.Do you think it is possible that because of that thatwhatever denial you made of the transfer of atomic parts ofthestory didn't get across to Mr. Szulc?Mr. Angleton. No, I think it got across to him.Mr. Schwarz. Can you recall your words to him thatdenied the atomic transfer?Mr. Angleton. My chief words to him was I said, do yourealize what a thing like this implies, and what it woulddo, depending on how the media picks it up, in destroying allthe efforts in the Middle East?Mr. Schwarz. But words like that are as consistentwith beingtrue as being false?TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 39]
TOP SECRETPhone (Area 202) 544-6000Mr. Angleton. They were consistent, but they weren't stated in that fashion. They were stated in the fashion that Mann is a person who fits within the Philby, et cetera, complex in a false story of this sort, which comes to the British who pull out a file on Mann, and they read down and go back into the fact of Mann's association with me, Mann's association with Philby, all this stuff of my actions with the Israelis and all that, regardless of what the U.S. Government tells the British or the French, or the Canadians, or the Australians, or the New Zealanders, all of whom have fundamentally the basic information -- it would be a confirmation to then, based on very high level secret information, that the story was true.Senator Tower. Let me pursue just about three questions here.Did Szulc specifically ask you whether or not, during the early sixties, fissionable material, along with nuclear technology and technological assistance, was passed to the Israelis?Did he ask youto confirm or deny that?Mr. Angleton. I can't remember it with precisely that type of precision. The story that he gave was a very lucid, straightforward story without any if's, and's and but's.Senator Twoer. Did you deny only in part the validity of the question that he asked?TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 40]
TOP SECRETIn other words, if he askedyou about the passage of both fissionable material and technology, did you deny wholly or in part that there had been a passage of fissionable material?Mr. Angleton. No, I denied his story -- I would like to keep that as his story, something he came and presented. And then when he got down into the other things, which had to do with technology all I can say is that anyone who follows closely the Nasser, and then later on Sadat accusations against CIA, it is voluminous in terms of their spelling out the sophisticated gadgetry which they discovered, which came from Central Intelligence.This is a thing that has always concerned us, because in the last war we lost -- and we still do this today, we don't know the extent of this -- we lost some of the installations which we had put in there.Mr. Schwarz. When you say "we", you mean the CIA?Mr. Angleton. The CIA -- the Israeli lost entirely --Mr Schwarz. When he say we put in there, you mean the CIA put in there?Senator Baker. What installations?Mr. Angleton. The line of sight, electronics --Senator Baker. You are not talking about --Mr. Angleton. I am talking about the signal intelligence. And there was some very sophisticated gear that was put inTOP SECRET
[157-10014-10005.pdf — page 41]
TOP SECRET1 there. And I want to complete this -- because of the fact2 that most of the information which we gained from the SAM's,3 which had a direct bearing on using B-52's in Vietnam, we4 gained through Israel. We could read a whole lot of the compu-5 terizing and so on of those SAM's. And therefore we were pre-6 pared to give highly sophisticated equipment to Israel to7 work against that Russian business in order to transfer the8 knowledge to Vietnam.9 So I told them, I said, yes, we have worked on questions10 we have always helped them out technologically. And I think11 I made the comment that any piece of gear we ever gave them,12 that they turned it to a far greater sophisticated use13 than we had, which was true in many instances.14 And they would cannibalize, and we would get the product.15 But there was no -- so that this is clearcut, there was16 no attempt to lead him on regarding the nuclear one, because17 the nuclear one was very clearly stated to him, that the injec-18 tion of Mann into the story had a certain significance of its19 own.20 And I think Wells will hear me out very clearly on this,21 that the injection of that could not be magic, it had to come22 from somebody who is in the intelligence service. I mean that23 element -- and if this story without the introduction of Mann24 had beertold, it would be just another of the many rumors25 And Senator, there is something I forgot, and I want toTOP SECRET