Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 31]
TOP SECRET291. of these health threats.2 Mr. diGenova. Self-immolation.3 Senator Huddleston. The snake acts and innoculations.4 Mr. diGenova. That's exactly right.5 Mr. Maxwell. The problem is that's not quite applicable6 to this, and one has to argue in the past the Court has ruled7 on things that are found to be a threat to the personal liveli-8 hood or health of the individual rather than something that9 could be construed in a fundamentalist sense.10 Senator Huddleston. This doesn't preclude a sect that11 may be anti-atheist and as such anti-Communist from pursuing12 its principles, but the restriction would be pursing them through13 a government agency, which happens to be the CIA, or any other14 methods.15 Ms. Culbreath. Would this prohibit, then, somebody who was16 a member of one of these sects that was in an area where they17 gained information that would be helpful from them being sources?18 Senator Huddleston. I wouldn't think so if they wanted19 to write letters to the CIA.20 Ms. Culbreath. Well, just in terms of the debriefing kind21 of thing, or contact.22 Ms. Davis. We are talking about operational, not coming23 in to the Domestic Contact Service.24 Mr. diGenova. It is not very clear on this.25 Mr. Maxwell. The problem in part goes back to the difficult:
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 32]
TOP SECRET                                                301 we had with the Domestic Contact Division in trying to determine2 what was operational support, if operational support would be3 what did you learn about individuals there who might be4 receptive to American approaches. Then the clergy would be5 prohibited from providing that kind of information if that6 is operational support.7 Senator Mathias. Well, it seems to me if the religious8 came in and said I was at a meeting of the Holy Rollers last night9 and we all went down on the mourner's bench, and I heard the10 most remarkable things, and this is what I heard, there would11 be no prohibition against listening. Now, if you say, go pack12 to the Holy Rollers tonight --13 Mr. Kirbow. And listen again.14 Senator Mathias. Then you've got a question.15 Senator Huddleston. Then it is operational.16 I_don't think there's a need to write in that it doesn't17 pertain to the voluntary furnishing of information. I don't know.18 Mr. Aaron. I don't think -- no, that's really not an19 operational use, quite frankly. It's very similar to the DCD20 which takes information from lots of people, including people21 who are and have been for some time proscribed by CIA's own --22 Senator Huddleston. Well, anyway, that would be worked23 out in the statute itself.24 Mr. Aaron. We are spared the problem.NW 50955 DocId: 32423513 Page 33
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 33]
TOP SECRET                                                                         31Senator Huddleston. We ought to move on.Mr. Aaron. The next section is proprietaries and cover.Senator Huddleston. I just wonder if in presenting this, these three, these four, now, that we have just approved, it would be of any value to assert in our report that we recognize that the Agency has to find proper cover for its agents, that restricting that cover is a matter of some importance, but there are certain institutions that the Committee feels because of their nature and because of their standing in the country, and because of the need for the public to have confidence in them, that they should be, in effect, off limits, and because of that we recommend that these four recommendations be brought. I don't know whether you want to make it sound any better a not.Senator Hart of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, does the absence of brackets on the next set of recommendations mean that they are non-controversial?Senator Huddleston. On the proprietaries?Senator Hart of Colorado. Yes.Mr. Aaron. That is correct.Senator Huddleston. The gentleman did such a great job that nobody can question them.Mr. Aaron. I think there is only one set of brackets, and the next section is on page 67 in which it says that --Mr. diGenova. Oh, yes, there is something.NW 50955 DocId: 32423513 Page 34.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 34]
TOP SECRET32Mr. Kirbow. What page are you on?Mr. diGenova. 67.At the bottom of page 67 is a bracketed quote aboutAdmiral Raborn, a former Director of Central Intelligence.Now, if my memory serves me correctly -- now, first of all,this is the first time that anyone is mentioned by name in thefindings.Senator Huddleston. And the total findings are in thatsection.Mr. Kirbow. The findings are this foreign and military.Senator Huddleston. We referred to Helms and Laird, butI think we decided we could write around that.Mr. diGenova. Well, here's what happened here. Thisparagraph deals with the fact that when the Agency disposes ordissolves a proprietary, it tries to avoid conflicts of interest.However, when noted that sometimes pressures were broughtto bear on the Agency to dispose of the entity as a favor tosomeone, so that it would benefit someone else.Now, the most glaring example of this was this activityof the former Director, Admiral Raborn, who actually becameinvolved in negotiations on behalf of a client, OverseasNational Airways, which he represented, and he wanted the saleof Southern Air Transport, which was a CIA proprietary, largeassets and large property, to Overseas National Airways, whichof course would have acquired Southern Air Transport's lucrativeNW 50955 DocId: 32423513 Page 35
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 35]
331 routes.2 Now, the way I originally had it written was "A former3 Director of the Central Intelligence Agency sought unsuccess-4 fully to influence the sale." However, if it was left that way,5 people would have to guess at which one of these guys did this6 and it would unfairly impugn all of the directors. The name7 was inserted. Therefore, the question now becomes whether it8 should be left in at all since the name is inserted, and since9 the name is mentioned in the report, and whether or not the10 whole sentence--11 Senator Hart of Colorado. Well, what if we just said "A12 former Director"?13 Mr. diGenova. Well, the problem there, Senator, is then14 people say, which one was it?15 Senator Hart of Colorado. Good.16 Mr. diGenova. Oh, all right.17 Mr. Inderfurth. I think the assumption would be Richard18 Helms.19 Mr. diGenova. McCone more than Helms.20 Senator Hart of Colorado. Well, we ran into this last21 summer with the Exener matter and all like that.22 Ms. Culbreath. A former person.23 Mr. diGenova. The Agency itself cited this as the most24 flagrant example of intercession on behalf of anyone. As a25 matter of fact, the memorandums on this refer to dozens of
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 36]
TOP SECRET 341 phone calls and overtures, and it is a former Director trying to2 gain a benefit. It is an unseemly situation, and they labeled3 it as a conflict of interest which they sought to avoid, and4 in fact they did, and they are praised for it in the report5 because they were really under tremendous pressure.6 So I have no feeling one way or the other. I think to7 leave out his name unfairly impugns the other. To leave it in,8 also, is only the second time in the whole findings and conclusions9 that we mention anybody's name, so I don't care.10 Senator Huddleston. And you've got one, Recommendation11 No. 5, related to the disposal of the proprietaries, that the12 Justice Department approve?13 Mr. diGenova. Be consulted on the disposition.14 Mr. Kirbow. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard on that?15 Senator Huddleston. Yes, sir.16 Mr. Kirbow. Senator Hart, in this regard we have consistently17 attempted by most every reasonable means to not use the names18 of people unless they had committed something illegal.19 Senator Hart of Colorado. Well, don't side with me. I'm20 not taking a position.21 Mr. Kirbow. But the Exener thing was a big example, but22 we must have had 20 other names that we went through on that23 assassination, and we wrote around them.24 Senator Hart of Colorado. But a number of people argued25 strongly that we ought to name her and go into details, so ITOP SECRETNW 50955 DocId:32423513 Page 37
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 37]
TOP SECRET351 suppose the same arguments could be used here on this matter.2 Mr. Kirbow. But the point I raised at the staff meeting3 just before the Committee came back, when the subject was4 raised, was did Admiral Raborn, as a retired military officer,5 currently in a civilian status, although he was former -- break6 any American law, or had they sold it to this, would it have7 been a violation of the law, and the answer was no..8 If he was involved -- or they knew of no law that he9 had violated, and none is apparently cited in the record.10 Pressure was brought to bear, there is no doubt about it, by11 Admiral Raborn. I think there's another example. I'm not12 sure whether Joe described it to me or someone else, of a13 very senior official out there dealing back with the Agency.14 Now, the military, as Senator Hart knows, is prohibited15 from this by regulations and I think by law. I know that as a16 regular military officer, you are not allowed to do contractual17 business with your agency forever, but with the other military18 departments and the Department of Defense, I think you have to19 have a cleansing period of five to seven years.20 I don't believe there is any such provision in the Act21 that applies to former Directors, and probably what the Committee22 should do is consider this action without necessarily naming23 him unless he was in violation of some really serious24 wrongdoing, and make a prohibition, drawn similarly, with what25 now applies to senior officials going back and kind of exerting![TAD RPPP]NW 50955 DocId: 32423513 Page 38
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 38]
TOP SECRET 361 undue influence on those people.2 Senator Huddleston. Joe, is it accurate to say that3 pressures were often brought to bear?4 Mr. diGenova. We changed that to say sometimes. This is5 a rewrite. Someone else wrote this after I had submitted it,6 and we had a meeting today, and we changed several things in7 there.8 So I leave it up to the Committee. This was a matter that9 I -- I wanted to flag it and leave it there. The explanation10 is as clear as I can give it.11 Mr. Inderfurth. This is the first time he is mentioned12 in the entire paper.13 Mr. diGenova. That's right.14 Senator Huddleston. Why don't we delete that sentence and15 keep it in our full report, our big report.16 Mr. Kirbow. There is a major classified report on17 this that would contain all the facts.18 Senator Huddleston. I am concerned now whether any other19 instances of someone may be, of similar standing as Admiral20 Raborn.21 Mr. diGenova. Yes. There are instances in the record22 which do not deal with proprietaries, of John McCone interceding23 on behalf of Pan American directly with the Director of24 Central Intelligence, and it is not mentioned in the report,25 and it should be, and it is a problem that we have had, Mr.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 39]
TOP SECRET371 Chairman, has been that the work involving the relationship of2 the Central Intelligence Agency with American business companies3 was severed off from the proprietary work for the simple4 reason that they are not the same thing.5 That work has been done. It has not been pursued vigorous-6 ly, not because the individual who was responsible for itä7 didn't want to.8 Senator Huddleston. That happened after he left.9 Mr. diGenova. That's right, after Mr. McCone left the10 DCI, he had frequent contacts, according to the records, with11 the Agency, with high level Agency personnel, and in one instance12 he interceded personally with the Director of Central Intelli-13 gence to avoid actions which would be taken by another govern-14 ment and its airline which would adversely affect Pan American15 World Airways.16 Senator Huddleston. It is hard to separate a man from his17 past totally.18 Mr. diGenova. It seems particularly hard with DCIs.19 Mr. Kirbow. Well, not only here, this is not with the20 Agency, but it came up in my experience with the Armed Services21 Committee involving Continental Airlines.22 Senator Mathias. This sentence.23 Senator Huddleston. Just the sentence in brackets.24 Senator Mathias. Well, I think if you've got a Raborn Case25 a McCone Case and whatnot, that you can't make fish of one and
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 40]
TOP SECRET381 fowl of the other.2 Senator Huddleston. I think we've already said that3 pressures sometimes were brought to bear and we make recommenda-4 tions to correct that.5 Ms. Culbreath. Mr. Chairman, could I suggest that maybe if6 we do delete that, that we perhaps redo that previous sentence7 to make it a little stronger, and perhaps in some way8 indicate that these were serious pressures, and they were, I9 think, hard pressures to withstand when somebody in that kind10 of position --11 Senator Huddleston. They were withstood, though.12 Mr. Maxwell. They would get lost the way the sentence is13 cut.14 Mr. diGenova. I think what we will do is David and I15 will get together, and Elizabeth, and we will change this16 "however" sentence, the sentence that precedes the one that17 has just been deleted, and we will expand that sentence to18 more accurately explain that the pressures came from high sources19 sometimes. Some of them may have been maybe former Agency20 directors.21 Senator Huddleston. I think we should make the point that22 it was former.23 Senator Mathias. Well, if they were former directors,24 then you may as well leave in the last sentence.25 Mr. diGenova. Maybe.TAP REPDET
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 41]
TOP SECRET39Mr. Kirbow. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that maybe perhaps we use this type of part of the investigation and what we know from certain of the other files to prohibit this type of conduct by law in the future in our general recommendations?Senator Huddleston. And make it similar to --Mr. Kirbow. Similar. I think you would have to look at something from the staff.Mr. diGenova. I didn't have that recommendation in there, but I think the record indicates it ought to be there.Mr. Kirbow. It wouldn't be proper, necessarily, to put it right here under proprietaries, but let's put it in the general recommendations.Mr. diGenova. David, did you get that?Mr. Aaron. I'm sorry.There's a recommendation that --Mr. diGenova. That Agency personnel --Mr. Kirbow. Senior officials.Senator Huddleston.. Similar to what applies now for military.Mr. Maxwell. Well, perhaps the statute, perhaps we could recommend a statute similar to that governing the Department of Defense.Mr. Kirbow. Be enacted by the next Committee, similar in effect to.Senator Huddleston. And find a proper place to put it in
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 42]
TOP SECRET401 our recommendations.2 Mr. Aaron. Okay.3 Mr. Maxwell. Well, Charlie, correct me. I think the4 proprietary section would be the appropriate section because5 that would be where it came up most, unless there is another6 one that you see more readily.7 Mr. diGenova. We can work that out. I don't think8 that's terribly --9 Mr. Kirbow. I think there have been two or three sug-10 gestions made here that will result in general recommendations11 on a page that isn't necessarily supported by findings, but you12 come to this overally conclusion based upon your total concept13 of the Agency and its procedures and everything else in view14 of the findings.15 Mr. diGenova. The only thing I want to do is -- David,16 I know you have gone through this, but the Senators may want to17 look at page 68 through 70, which deal with cover, and particu-18 larly with Mr. Welch.19 Ms. Culbreath. I had a point I wanted to raise on that.20 Mr. diGenova. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the Senators21 want to read this.22 Ms. Culbreath. Why don't we let them look through it.23 (Pause.)24 Senator Huddleston. Let's go back on the record.25 Mr. diGenova. I do know the Agency is going to come in
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 43]
# TOP SECRET411 tomorrow to review the cover paper from which this summary is2 drawn. I know Eric has some problems with the cover paper, both3 editorially, because they view it as overly simplistic and4 harsh because it reflects all of the Inspector General's5 judgments, but they have some problems with cover in general,6 but I don't think this is going to be part of that problem.7 Senator Huddleston. I have some problem with this page8 70. relating to Welch because it seems the whole implication of9 that is that he was murdered because his cover was blown, and10 so far there has been no evidence that that is the case. It11 highlights the argument, I think, correctly, but it seems to me12 it leaves the impression that here is a case where a fellow's13 cover or lack of cover resulted in his death.14 I think the Agency people have specifically said to us15 so far that they have no reason at this point yet to expect16 that that was the reason he got killed.17 Mr. Maxwell. In regard to the specific quote, I think18 we have to be very careful as to getting involved in an argument19 which would imply that anything that we possibly did had an20 effect on it, and also, that it seems to point to Mr. Welch21 and say, well, it is all his fault.22 Senator Huddleston. He didn't protect his cover, he23 didn't do what they advised him to do, and you see down here24 we have another quote which says, referring to international25 terrorism and incitement for these kind of people to take the
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 44]
TOP SECRET                                                                     42kind of action which unfortunately led to the death of DickWelch. There again we are ascribing something to the death ofDick Welch which nobody knows yet, you know, what terroristskilled him or why; at least our record doesn't show.Mr. diGenova. These statements here, Senator, this is adirect quote from Eric Eisenstead's memo. Do you think thatwe should maybe in the findings and recommendations shortenthis and maybe --Mr. Kirbow. I think the part of the record which is anunknown fact is why Dick Welch was killed, and we should stayaway from any quotes or other pronouncements in our paper whichattribute his death to any particular thing unless we knowsomething.Mr. Aaron. I think that is a good point. We might putin here a statement which says the Committee has no informationas to the reasons, purposes or cause, specific cause, of hisdeath. The point is to get at the question of cover, tostep out to the question of cover in the report, as we do, Ithink, appropriately, but not have talked about the one casewhere this all came out in public, rightly or wrongly.Mr. Kirbow. Why don't we use the cover for the gentlemanin London, then, where as the tour buses go by, of course, youknow this is the home of the CIA chief, and he hasn't beenkilled yet or anything like that. If we want to use thatkind instead of using this death example, which, by the way,TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 45]
TOP SECRET431 has brought some thousands of letters from the constituency of2 certain southern Senators who shall remain unnamed or near-3 Southern Senators, because it kind of was a catalytic agent4 in getting a lot of complaints on the Committee and everything5 else, and this pointing out or explaining Welch's death goes6 back to it.7 Senator Huddleston. I'm sort of southern.8 Mr. Kirbow. And you've got a lot of them.9 Senator Huddleston. Of course, it was used for that10 purpose by certain high officials for that.11 Mr. Kirbow. The very highest, including attending the12 funeral.13 Mr. diGenova. Well, I think one of the things we wanted14 to pinpoint here, and first of all, I think we can summarize the15 Agency's testimony a little better. The Agency said, nothing16 this Committee did, first of all, had anything to do with his17 death, as far as they know.18 Ms. Culbreath. But they don't know.19 Mr. diGenova. As far as they know, they don't know one20 way or another, but the impression that was created in the21 press was, and was pandered to by the DCI and the President,22 was that the general actions of exposure of Agency operations23 were responsible for the death of Mr. Welch, and they pandered24 that by inviting Committee members to the funeral as if they25 bore some responsibility.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 46]
TOP SECRET44Now, the obvious public relations value of Mr. Welch's death, the first time in history the DDO and the DCI go to a funeral in public, they never did that, and there is no doubt that they tried to make political hay out of his death. I think it is only fair that the Committee ultimately say --Senator Huddleston. Right, but I think you've got two different problems. You've got a problem with whether the Committee wants to present its case and exonerate itself on the basis of everything that is known about the death of Welch, and whether that is pertinent to the problem of cover.Now, we make a recommendation that the CIA shall make an effort to place a greater proportion of its officer abroad! under nonofficial cover. It seems like what we need, there's a statement here is that official cover has not proved to be effective, and if we mention Welsh at all, I think the point we mention there is that his name was carried, that while he was there supposedly under cover, his name was in fact carried in a newspaper, the name of his newspaper had been carried in a foreign newspaper, and he was living in a house that was known to be the house.Mr. Kirbow. His true identity was widely known.Senator Huddleston. We can cite him as an example without indicating why he had been killed, of here is a case that everybody knows about, so-called official cover was not in fact very deep cover. There may be other instances that we
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 47]
TOP SECRET                                                                           451 want to refer to, but if we get into his death at all, I think2 we have got to present the case, that blowing his cover is not3 necessarily what killed him. Nobody knows that as of now, so4 far as I know. Nobody knows it wasn't just a street gang or an5 idiot.6 Mr. Kirbow. It could have been like the Senator John7 Stennis case, where they buttonholed him in front of his8 house and killed him for robbery purposes.9 Senator Huddleston. We've asked them two or three times10 here, have we not?11 Mr. diGenova. Yes, we have. In fact they don't know.12 Senator Huddleston. In fact, the last time Nelson was13 here we asked him.14 Mr. Aaron. Can I try a fix on this, turning to page 70,15 instead of saying "the career and tragic death of the station16 chief," let's just say the "situation of the station chief in17 Athens illustrates the tension. As the Chief of the Cover18 Staff stated, by the time a person becomes a chief of19 station, there is not a great deal of cover left" leaving in20 the rest of that sentence, and then add in here, as you did,21 "Mr. Welch and his predecessor were both identified and named22 in the local press. Further, Mr. Welch occupied the same23 house."24 Senator Huddleston. Which presumably was known to be25 the house of the station chief.