Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 232]
- 12 -whether to go or what we should do next". (Id., p. 9.) Four days later, on November 22, 1963, (the same day AM/LASH was given the poison pen), Jean Daniel was meeting with Castro. On that same day, President Kennedy was assassinated. With the change of Administrations, Atwood's talks with the Cubans became less frequent and eventually ended in early 1964. (Atwood, p. 10.)4. Testimony on the Question of Authorization for the   AM/LASH Poison Pen Device(a) Testimony of Helms(i) The October 29 Meeting and the Use of RobertKennedy's Name Without Obtaining His ApprovalAs discussed above in detail (see pp. ), Fitzgerald met with AM/LASH on October 29, 1963, in a foreign capital. Fitzgerald represented to AM/LASH that he was the personal representative of Robert Kennedy, and gave AM/LASH assurances of full support should AM/LASH succeed in overthrowing Castro.The IG Report states that, according to Fitzgerald, Helms and Fitzgerald discussed the planned meeting with AM/LASH and Helms decided "it was not necessary to seek approval from Robert Kennedy for Fitzgerald to speak in his name". (IG, pp. 83-89). In his testimony, Helms stated he did not recall such a discussion with Fitzgerald, but that he believed he had pre-existing authority to deal with AM/LASH with respect to "a change in government" (as opposed to assassination) and that this made it unnecessary to obtain Robert Kennedy's approval.[^1]"I felt so sure that if I went to see Mr. Kennedy that he would have[^1]: */The following exchange occurred in Helms' testimony:"Sen. Hart of Michigan: Dealing with respect to "what?A change in government, or assassination?"Mr. Helms: A change in government, Senator Hart. This is what we were trying to do. (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 132)
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 233]
said yes, that I didn't think there was any need to." (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 132.)Helms said his view was that AM/LASH was a political action agent, not a potential assassin, and that the meeting with AM/LASH and his decision not to contact Robert Kennedy should be viewed in that light:"...given this Cuban of his standing and all the history...of trying to find someone inside Cuba who might head a government and have a group to replace Castro...this was so central to the whole theme of everything we had been trying to do, that I find it totally unnecessary to ask Robert Kennedy at that point (whether) we should go ahead with this. This is obviously what he had been pushing, what everybody had been pushing for us to try to do...let's get on with doing it." (Helms, 6/13/75, pp. 117-118),*/(ii) The Delivery of the Poison Pen on November 22While Helms stated that the delivery of a poison pen to AM/LASH was not part of an assassination plot, Helms testified:*/As discussed above (see pp. ), there was conflicting testimony from CIA officers as to whether they viewed AM/LASH as an assassin and as to the purpose of giving him the poison pen. The documentary evidence, however, indicates that AM/LASH in 1963 was intent upon assassinating Castro, that the CIA officers knew of this, and, in addition to offering a poison pen, told AM/LASH they would supply him with high powered rifles with telescopic sights. (see p. above).Helms testified that because Amlash 'was the asset we were looking for, (w)e didn't want him to blow himself or blow anything else by getting involved in something like this [assassination] and have it fail. We wanted him to stay in place." (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 131). Helms stated that "at no time was it the idea of [the AM/LASH-1] case officers, or those people in the chain behind, to use [AM/LASH-1] to assassinate Castro." (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 135).Helms further stated "...there was an enormous amount of temporizing with this fellow to keep him on the team, to keep him working away at this job, but to try and persuade him that this was not the way to go about it." (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 135). Helms testified that AM/LASH-1 was given the poison pen "because he was insisting on something and this was a temporizing gesture rather than giving him some kind of a gun he had asked for...." (Helms, 6/13, p. 135)
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 234]
- 14 -that he believed Castro's assassination was within the scope of the CIA's authority. /(Helms, 9/12/75, pp. 11-12). As in the case of the 1962 plots, Helms based this on the vigor of the Administration's policy towards Cuba /and his perception that there were no limits put on the means that could be used in the effort against Castro. (Helms, 9/12/75, pp. 11-12). Thus,/ Helms testified that after the missile crisis the U.S. continued to conduct covert actions whose purpose was "to overthrow Castro." (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 24.) /Helms was asked whether it was his opinion that the offer of the poison pen to AM/LASH was authorized because it came within the scope of the 1963 program against Castro. Helms. responded:/"I think the only way I know how to answer that is that I do not recall when things got cranked up in 1963 any dramatic changes or limitations being put on this operation. There was still an effort by whatever device, and perhaps only slightly differently oriented at this time, to try to get rid of Castro... But I do not recall specific things being said, now, (we are not) going to do this, we're not going to do that, and we're not going to do the other thing, and we will do just these things."(b) Testimony of Administration OfficialsAs with the Mongoose period, the Administration officials agreed that they were not informed about any assassination plot and that there was no order that Castro be assassinated. Again, they disagreed with Helms' position that an assassination plot could be undertaken without express authority. The only added part relating to the AM/LASH plot was certain testimony which asserted that it was inconceivable that the President would have approved an assassination plot at the very same time he had authorized talks to explore the possibility of improved relations with Castro.*/*/Rusk testified that "I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe" and that "I just can't conceive" President Kennedy would have authorized the passage of an assassination device for use against Castro while Atwood was exploring the possibility
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 235]
- 15 -Since. Helms did not claim any higher specific authorization for orknowledge of the AM/LASH assassination plot, however, the additional issueposed by that testimony does not really arise.(continued)of normalizing relations with Castro. (Rusk, 7/10/75, p. 85). Similarly, Bundytestified he "absolutely" did not believe President Kennedy would have authorizedor permitted an assassination device to have been passed at the same time apossible rapprochment with Castro was being pursued. (Bundy, 7/11/75, p. 151).On the other hand, when the possibility of exploring better relations withCastro was initially raised (but before any talks were begun) Bundy indicatedthat it could be explored on a "separate track" while other proposed actions,such as sabotage, were going on. (Agenda for Special Group meeting of 4/29/63,p. 2.)
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 236]
Subcommittee Meeting9/9/75. Approved Draft.d. The Question of Authorization in the Johnson Administration1. Summary of the Assassination Activity. As discussed above (see pp. ), the Agency delivered arms to AM/LASH in Cuba in March and June 1964. In early 1965 after AM/LASH became more insistent that a Castro assassination was necessary and had asked for a silenced weapon, the Agency put AM/LASH in contact with the leader of an anti-Castro group, B-1, with the intention that AM/LASH obtain such a weapon. Thereafter, the Agency learned that AM/LASH had received a silencer and other special equipment from B-1 and was preparing to assassinate Castro.2. The Issue of Authorization. The issue of authority in the Johnson Administration is similar to that in the Kennedy Administration. During this phase of the AM/LASH plot, Helms continued as Deputy Director for covert operations, and the principal members of the Kennedy Administration continued in their positions in the relevant period of the Johnson Administration (Robert Kennedy left the Administration in the midst of this period, on ).* Helms' testimony that he believed a Castro assassination was within the scope of the CIA's authority in view of Administration policy towards Cuba applied to the AM/LASH operation in both 1963 and 1964-65. (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 137-138.) Again, there was no evidence that McCone or anyone above the Agency specifically authorized or knew about the 1964-65 plot. We discuss below four other matters occurring during the Johnson Administration: (1) the covert action program against Cuba in 1964-1965; (2) the Special Groups' action in investigating reports of Cuban exile underworld*Rusk (Secretary of State), McNamara (Secretary of Defense), McCone (Director of Central Intelligence); and Bundy (Special Assistant for National Security and Chairman of the Special Group).
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 237]
## SENSITIVEplots to assassinate Castro; (3) Helms' report to Rusk that CIA was not in- involved with AM/LASH in a Castro assassination plot; and (4) Helms' briefing of President Johnson on the 1967 IG Report on alleged CIA assassination plots.3. The Covert Action Program Against Cuba in 1964-1965. According to the minutes of a Special Group meeting on April 7, 1964, which he chaired, President Johnson decided to discontinue the use of CIA-controlled sabotage raids against Cuba.* (Memorandum of Special Group Meeting, April 7, 1964, p. _.) A memoran- dum by McCone indicated that in deciding this question, President Johnson abandoned the objective of Castro's overthrow.**At the April 7, Special Group meeting, Rusk had emphasized his opposition to the use of sabotage raids, stating his belief that they were unproductive, and had a "high noise level" that called attention to them. In addition, Rusk stated that "he suspects the Cuban exiles who actually conduct the raids of possible wishing to leave fingerprints pointing to U. S. involvement in order to increase that involvement." (Memorandum of Special Group Meeting, April 7, 1964, page.2.)*A memorandum by Bundy on April 7, 1964, listed seven aspects of the covert action program which had been in effect. These were: (1) collection of intelligence; (2) covert propaganda to encourage low risk forms of active and passive resistance; (3) cooperation with other agencies in economic denial; (4) attempts to identify and establish contact with potential dissident elements inside Cuba; (5) indirect economic sabotage; (6) CIA-controlled sabotage raiding; and (7) autonomous opera- tions. (Memorandum for the Record of the Special Group, April 7, 1964, p. 1-2.)**At the April 7, 1964, meeting Rusk and Bundy opposed continuation of sabotage actions by CIA-controlled assets as "unproductive" and impractical. McCone dis- agreed, noting that the covert action program relied on a "well-planned series of sabotage efforts". (Memorandum of Special Group Meeting, April 7, 1964, p. 3.) In this connection, Bundy noted that since the approval of the current sabotage in June 1963 "policymakers...had turned sabotage operations on and off to such an extent that (the sabotage program) simply does not, in the nature of things, appear feasible". (Id., p. 2.)
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 238]
4. The Special Group Investigation of Reported Castro Assassination Plots by Cuban Exiles. On June 10, 1964, Helms informed McCone by memorandum that Agency officials had learned of several plots of Cuban exiles to assassinate Castro and other Cuban leaders. (Memorandum, Helms to McCone, June 10, 1964.)Several of the plots, according to the memorandum, involved "people apparently associated with the Mafia". Reportedly the exiles had offered people associated with the Mafia $150,000 to perform the deed. In his memorandum, Helms stated that the sources of the reports were parties to the plots and in submitting the in- formation to Agency officers were presumably seeking legal immunity should the plots succeed. (Id., p. 1.)Helms' memorandum, however, made no mention of any of the CIA assassination plots against Castro.*(Footnote continued from previous page.)In a memorandum the day after President Johnson's decision to stop CIA-controlled sabotage operations, McCone stated: "the real issue to be considered at the meeting and by the President was a question of whether we wished to implement the policy (outlined in certain memoranda) or abandon the basic objective of bring- ing about the liquidation of the Castro Communist entourage and the elimination of Communist presence in Cuba and thus rely on future events of an undisclosed nature which might accomplish this objective". (Memorandum by McCone, April 8, 1964, p._.)In the context of the Special Group's discussion, McCone's use of the words "liquidation" and "elimination" appears to be another example of inartful language. A literal interpretation of these words leaves one with the impression that assassination was contemplated. But the context of the discussion does not bear out such an interpretation. Thus in specifying what he meant by "future events of an undisclosed nature" McCone pointed to "extreme economic distress caused by a sharp drop in sugar prices", and "other external factors". (Id, p. 8.) McCone testified that such references as the "elimination" or "liquidation" of the Castro regime did not refer to assassination. (McCone, p. .)**Moreover, according to Bundy, no one from the CIA or anyone else informed him at the meetings that "in earlier years there had been a relationship with...persons allegedly involved with the criminal syndicate--in order to accomplish the assassination of Fidel Castro". (Bundy, p. 71.)
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 239]
Indeed, it stated that "Agency officers made clear to each of the sources that the United States Government would not under any circumstances, condone the planned actions". (Id., p. 1.)When the Special Group considered the information in Helms memorandum on June 18, 1964, McCone stated he was "somewhat skeptical" and proposed additional investigation, but "others, including Mr. Bundy, felt that the U. S. was being put on notice and should do everything in its power to ascertain promptly the veracity of the reports and then undertake prevention". (Memorandum of Special Group Meeting, June 18, 1964.) In a memorandum on the June 18 meeting, McCone indicated he had dissented from the Special Group's decision, stating his belief that the Special Group was "overly exercised" and that he was inclined to dismiss the matter as 'Miami cocktail party talk". McCone noted, however, that the Special Group "was more concerned than I and therefore planning to discuss the subject with the Attorney General and possibly Mr. Hoover". (Memorandum June 18, 1964, p. 1.)The Special Group decided that the reports be transmitted to the Attorney General "as a matter of law enforcement". (Id.) Robert Kennedy was informed of this matter a few days later and stated that the Justice Department would investigate. (Memorandum of Meeting, 22 June 1964.) Thereafter the FBI conducted an investigation, the results of which were submitted to the Special Group on August 19, 1964, by McCone.* (Memorandum, August 19, 1964, McCone to Bundy.)*McCone's memorandum summarized seven FBI reports on its investigation. The FBI found that several of the persons it interviewed stated they had knowledge of the exile's plots and had reported the information to the CIA. Others interviewed denied knowledge of the plans.
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 240]
55.  Helms' Report to Rusk that CIA was not Involved with Amlash in a Castro Assassination PlotIn March 1966, Helms reported to Rusk by memorandum on the CIA's relations with Amlash. (Rusk Ex. 7, Memorandum, March 7, 1966, Helms to Rusk).In this report, Helms stated that the CIA's contact with Amlash was for "the express purpose" of intelligence collection. (Id.). Noting Cuban press claims that Amlash and a second Cuban had been involved with the CIA in a Castro assassination plot, Helms stated:The Agency was not involved with either of these two men in a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro, as claimed in /a Cuban news release/ nor did it ever encourage either of these two persons to attempt such an act. (Rusk Ex. 7, p. 1).The Helms memorandum to Rusk made no mention of the fact that CIA officers, with Helms' knowledge, had offered a poison pen to Amlash on November 22, 1963, that CIA had supplied arms to Amlash in 1964, or that CIA had put Amlash in touch with B-l to enable him to obtain a silenced weapon to assassinate Castro.In his testimony, Helms stated that this memorandum to Rusk was "inaccurate" and "not truthful". (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 115.)The CIA's copy of the Helms' memorandum to Rusk contains a typed notation in which Helms' signature was recommended by the CIA's then Deputy Director for Plans, Thomas Karamessines. (Rusk Ex. 7, p. 2.) Helms testified that the day before his June 13, 1975, testimony to the Committee he had asked Karamessines why the memorandum to Rusk had been written as it was. Helms stated he and Karamessines concluded they did not know the reason but Helms speculated that "it may be until we conducted (the 1967 IG investigation) somewhat later we didn't have the facts straight, or maybe we had the facts straight then but we did not have them straight later". "(Helms, 6/13/75, p. 115.)
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 241]
6. Helms' Briefing of President Johnson on the 1967 Inspector General's   Report. Drew Pearson's article in the spring of 1967 alleging U. S. involvement in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro prompted President Johnson to request Helms, who by then had become the DCI, to conduct an investigation. The result was the Inspector General's Report of May 23, 1967. (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 35.) After receiving the report, Helms briefed the President "orally about the contents". (Id. at 36.) During his testimony, Helms was shown his handwritten notes apparently prepared for his briefing of the President. Those notes carried the story through mid-1963. When asked if he told President Johnson that, according to the 1967 study, the efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro had continued into Johnson's presidency, Helms replied, "I just can't answer that, I just don't know. I can't recall having done so". (Id. at 38.) He did note that it would not have occurred to him to brief President Johnson on the 1964 AM/LASH gun deliveries because "I don't think one would have approached the AM/LASH thing as an assassination plot against Castro". (Id. at 39.) Helms had testified that AM/LASH was an intelligence and political action agent. (Helms, _____, p. _____.) The IG Report however, treated the AM/LASH operation as an assassination plot. (IG, p. _____ - _____.)7. Helms Testimony on Authorization in the Johnson Administration. In his testimony, Helms was asked if the Agnecy regarded "whatever marching orders they had obtained prior to the dealth of President Kennedy as still being valid and operative" when President Johnson succeeded to the office. Helms replied:
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 242]
7This is not very clear to me at this stage. A lot of the same officers were serving President Johnson as they served President Kennedy, and...I can't recall anymore whether there was any specific issue about whether this was taken up with President Johnson at any meeting or any session. If it had been, I would have thought there would have been records someplace." (Helms, 6/13, p. 139.)When asked whether President Johnson had been informed of or had authorized continuing efforts to assassinate Castro, Helms replied indirectly that "the Special Group would have continued to consider these matters, and I would have assumed that whoever was chairing the Special Group would have in turn reported to the President, which was the usual practice". (Id.)But the records of the Special Group do not show any consideration of a Castro assassination or of the AM/LASH plot during the Johnson Administration (or earlier). And, as discussed above, there was no evidence that McCone or anyone above the Agency was informed of or specifically authorized the AM/LASH plots.
[157-10014-10151.pdf — page 243]
Agreed to by subcommittee 10/10/75Pending (1) Rewrite per SubcommitteeEditing and (2) Insertion ofGottlieb and Tweedy Testimony# TABLE OF CONTENTSD. CONGO1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12. Dulles Cabled Leopoldville That "Removal" of Lumumba is an Urgent Objective in "High Quarters" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33. CIA Encouraged Congolese Efforts to "Eliminate" Lumumba, Who Was Viewed as a "Grave Danger" Even After Being Deposed and Placed in U.N. Protective Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84. The Plot to Assassinate Lumumba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14   (a) Dulles Cabled Again for "Elimination" of Lumumba, and a Messenger Was Sent to Congo With a Highly Sensitive Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15   (b) Gottlieb Delivered Lethal Substance to Hedgman in the Congo for the Assassination of Lumumba: September 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18   (c) Hedgman Testified That Gottlieb Told Him That President Eisenhower Had Ordered the Assassination of Lumumba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22   (d) Headquarters Makes the Assassination Plot "Highest Priority" and Authorizes Steps in Furtherance of It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24   (e) The Chief of Station Moves Forward With Assassination Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31   (i) The Chief of Station Testified That He Requested and Received Confirmation of the Assassination Plan from Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31   (ii) The Chief of Station Took "Exploratory Steps" in Furtherance of the Assassination Plot and Testified That He Destroyed Cable Traffic Related to the Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34