HW 54756 20 21 22 23 24, 25 DoclId: 67 agency had used him as a source or considered him for recruit- ment." Mr. Genzman. Are you reading from the bottom of page 2107? Mr. Hartman. That is correct, paragraph 5, the last | statement on that page. | That statement is based on my checking the ISR, although L did not say so specifically. Mr. Genzman. And what were the results of your check? Mr. Hartman. Negative. Totally negative. Mr. Genzman. Are you convinced that Oswald was never a source or agent for any other American Government agency? Mr. Hartman. ‘Yes, I am. Mr. Genzman. Did you ever check directly with other agencies to determine whether Oswald had ever been an agent for them? Mr. Hartman. No. That was not my function. [I don't know whether the liaison element ever checked. I can't tell you that. But I know that ISR is a part of the liaison element and therefore, that would have been the only way they would have checked, too, I suppose. Mr. Genzman. Would a direct check with other agencies have been helpful? Mr. Hartman. I don't think so. Let me explain why I say that. It might sound kind of offhand, but it isn't. You see the services .-= thatiis, the 263405 Page 66
10 1 12 @ : 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 HW 54756 DBoctId: 68 military services -- were very interested in making certain that a source of theirs or a potential source of theirs wouldn't be used by another agency.. Let's put it in much plainer words. If the military attache somewhere had an agent who was reporting to him, he did not want the naval attache to use that agent or for that matter he did not want that agent to be picked up by CIA and taken away from him. That was the function of the ISR, to register the person as a source of such-and-such an agency so that another agency couldn't use hin. Another function was -- and I want to be sure that's also in the record -- was to make certain that you don't get taken by fabricators or paper mills, people who gO from one agency to another selling information. Those are the two basic functions of the ISR. Now, in the military's desire to make certain that. they keep their agent or their source, they often sent us lists of people who were potential sources. They hadn't even contacted them yet, but so they had their hooks into them,-+ that.-is, so the army had its hooks into this person, rather than the air force getting ahold of him or her -- they registered him with us that way, they had first call. So, it is most unlikely, I can't conceive of one of the services not registering a person with the ISR because they were so anxious, always, to make sure they retained this person as theirs. Mr. Genzman. Can you conceive of a situation where the 263408 Page 69
HW 54756 “49 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 Agency would be running such a sensitive operation they would avoid registering an agent with the ISR? Mr. Hartman. You are mistaken in how the ISR functions. The Agency didn't register anyone with the ISR. It was only other agencies. Mr. Genzman. I was speaking of other agencies in my question. | | | Mr. Hartman. I'm sorry, I thought you meant the Agency as CIA. | | - Mr. Genzman. I was speaking of any operation which might have had an operation so sensitive they decided against registering their agent with ISR. . Mr. Hartman. Not in a million years; it's inconceivable. They would be harming themselves so badly. They were running a double risk one was being sucked in by a paper mill or fabricato and the other risk, while they were working a guy, someone else, possibly the CIA,could come along and take him right away from them by offering him more money. So I can't conceive of that. At first when the ISR idea was first established many, many years back there had been some question when they were talking about establishing, what about the sensitivity. For this reason, there was this very separate section that held the 20ls of people who were used as sources for other agencies and so on and they were given all the assurances, and over the years it jjhad proven itself out that they didn't need to be afraid. DoclId: 322763408 Page 70
HW 54756 1 12 13 14 15 20 21 22 ° 23 24 25 70 Another thing we might add, and we are talking essentially about. the military services using the ISR, you might. keep in mind that although all sources are sensitive, the name of every agent used by any intelligence service is always considered sensitive. His life is on the Line in many instances. Although this is the case, the services were not running strategic cases. Their cases were. more tactical. That is the army, for example, in Europe, they would pick up a fellow, let's say in Germany, he could cross the border back and forth before the Wall, and what they were interested in was which military unit was stationed where and where was the airfield and who was in command; tactical type of information. When you compare that to a possible penetration of, say, like Oleg Penkovsky, when you consider this kind of penetration when we recruited Penkovsky, who knew about missiles and who was a colonel in the Soviet Union in the stream of information, when you stop and think about that as strategic, that is so much more sensitive than the: type of persons that the military would normally have recorded as their sources. I don't think. there was any question in the minds of the. services that their sources were being protected. | Mr. Genzman. ‘Directing your attention to 2108, paragraph 6, why hadn't the Mexican information been included in Oswald's 201 file before the day of the assassination? Mr. Hartman. As I had mentioned earlier, information Docld: 392763408 Page T1
HW 54756 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 _19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 71 concerning telephone taps, photographic surveillance and that type of thing done by the United States in a foreign country is an extremely sensitive matter, particularly done with a foreign neighboring country such as Mexico, in this case. The rules called for ‘us to hold sensitive papers apart from the file itself so that people in the records system where the file might be reposing wouldn't become privy to it. | Mr. Genzman. Are you Saying that the Mexico City informa- tion was kept in separate records? Mr. Hartman. No. What I am saying is that at. the Mexico desk, they had a file in which they kept the papers slugged “sensitive.” However , the fact those papers were a part of the 201 was recorded in the computer. Mr. Genzman. Isn't it true soon after the assassination these papers were included in the 201 file? Mr. Hartman. They were always a part of the 201 file, but were not physically held in the file before the assassination. After the assassination the file was pulled up from the file room and held at the desk at SIG by Betty Egerter. Again, this is a component handling very sensitive information, so I don't know whether those documents went into the file physically from the Mexico desk or not, but they could very well have done so. ‘It would have been at the discretion of the Mexico desk whether. they would permit that particular section, SIG, to have 263408 Page Tf? ; ; \ 0
5:30 c. fls HW 54756 10 12 13 14 16 | 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 72 those documents. Mr. Genzman. Isn't it true that the data obtained from Mexico City had been disseminated to other agencies before the assassination of President Kennedy? Mr. Hartman. That could very well have been the fact, but it was never said how the data were obtained. We never revealed the fact. that we had taps or photographic coverage, and that's the key in it. The information itself is not sensitive. The method of operating is. Mr. Genzman. How do you know the Mexico City cables were made available to the Warren Commission? Mr. Hartman. I can't say for certain that they were. Let me come back on that one. TI know that the information in those cables was made available to the Warren Commission and if my memory serves me, the Warren Commission even got direct transcripts. I am not certain on that point. However, as far as the file itself is concerned, I believe, if I recall correctly), what the Warren Commission asked of us was to see the file that we had as it existed up until the assassination, and I don't kno in what form the Mexico City information was passed. I believe they got copies of the transcripts. I can't swear to it. DocId:3 263408 Page 73
HW 54756 10 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 - 21 22 23 24 25 74 Mr. Hartman. No, I was not personally present. Mr. Genzman. Do you know who was present? Mr. Hartman. I believe Mr. Rocca was. I know Mr. Helms himself would have been, and I believe the Director was. Mr. Genzman. I would now like to ask you a few questions concerning Jack Ruby. Did the CIA obtaina the names of anyone other than Lewis McWillie whom Jack Ruby saw or talked with in Cuba? “Mr. Hartman. I don't remember the name "Jack McWillie." I don't remember. Mr. Genzman. It is Lewis McWillie. Mr. Hartman. Whatever it is; I don't remember that name at all. Mr. Genzman. Do you recall the names of anyone else whom Jack Ruby saw or talked with in Cuba? Mr. Hartman. No. Mr. Genzman. Do you know why the CIA response to the Warren Commission's request for information on Jack Ruby took a long as it aia? Mr. Hartman. Oh, yes, indeed, I do. I know very well. I was given the responsibility of. checking his name and I was involved ina large number of cases at that time, nothing to do wth the assassination matter at all, and I did a very thorough check on Ruby, just as I tried to do on Oswald; and it took “time. I had to review many, many records. I had not realized Docld: 392763408 Page 75
20 21 22 23 r 24 25 HW 54756 DoclId: ~ 75 at the time how common a name "Ruby" was, and there were all kinds of references to J. Ruby, and Ruby without a first name , and all of these had to be checked. I recall that most all of them were before the early '50s. I think a large number of the were in the '40s; therefore, these records in many instances were held in the archival repositories and they had to be ob- tained. All of this took time. I had to study all of them, each item individually, and it took me literally several months to do this work, because I was so involved in items that were o greater importance. IT remember at one point my boss came in furious and raised Cain with me because it hadn't been done yet. He had received a note from the Warren Commission saying that this is still pending. It was a mild note; it wasn't a very harsh note. And so I got as busy as I could and I finally got the thing out, but it-had taken a great deal of time; but there is nothing ominous about that; it was simply that we were all work ing very hard and these were chores in addition to our other | duties, our normal duties. Mr. Genzman. After the CIA responded to the Warren Com- mission inquiry concerning Ruby, did the CIA learn anything els about Jack Ruby from CIA files, sources or otherwise? Mr. Hartman. Not to my knowledge. . \ : Mr. Genzman. Does the CIA have any information linking Jack Ruby or his associates, especially Lewis McWillie, to the CIA-Mafita’ plots against Castro or to any other plots against 263408 Page T6
HW 54756 10 11 12 13 14° 18 19 20 21 22 23 (24 (25 | Docld:38763408 Page 77 some connection with the CIA, were any investigative reports generated by the investigations of this allegation? ‘to the best of my knowledge, produced absolutely negative result 76 Castro? ws Mr. Hartman. If there is any such information, I cerfainl don't know it, and I wouldn't have known it at the time, and to the best of my belief there isn't. I never found any such. Mr. Genzman. Pursuant to the Warren Commission's inquiry concerning Jack Ruby, did you review CIA information for possible links between Ruby and/or his associates with the CIA-Mafia plots? | Mr. Hartman. No; whatever information there was on Ruby at the time that I did check, I reported and recorded in the memo to the Warren Commission; but there was no such informatio there. Mr. Genzman. Were there any problems associated with the CIA's response to the Warren Commission inquiry concerning Ruby? Mr. Hartman. No. Mr. Genzman..With regard to the allegation that Oswald had Mr. Hartman. Well, I explained that before. We had only t ways to determine whether he was or not, two general ways: One was by checking locally within Headquarters and within the Unite States, as I did, and,two, checking overseas. -Both of these, There was no contact nor even the remotest connection between - Oswald and CIA.
HW 54756 10 12 13 14 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 Mr. Genzman. Earlier we dealt with your memorandum of 18 September 1975 contained on CIA pages 2105 through 2108. My question is whether there is any other written documen- tation which may have been made during the Warren Commission! s tenure dealing with allegations of a connection between Oswald and the CIA? Mr. Hartman. Let's hear that one back again. Mr. Genzman. Could we go off the record? (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Hartman. No, there is none that I know at the moment. I must, however, say that I must have written cauntless notes and memos of this nature, most of them having very little sub- stantive connection with the assassination, notes concerning who is holding this particular document at this moment or all sorts of questions that arose at the time that I would try to find the answer for; but most of these I destroyed. Asa matter of fact, this memo is an Old one. I would have normally destroyed that One too because it says really nothing; it says that at one point there were 37 documents which were not physically in the. file but were recorded as being there. The same might have applied at any one point after the assassination when people were studying the case and I could hav made other such notes. There might have been 50 documents that could have been missing at one point, Or even more, physically out of the file, but they have no bearing on the fact that they DocId: 3263408 Page 78
6 | a 78 1 “were not in the file. They were registered as being in the @ 2 file. I constantly had a machine run telling me exactly what was 3 in the file, so where the document file ‘physically was located, @ 4 someone was studying it and so on, is a secondary point. | 5 Mr. Genzman. When CIA Director John McCone sent an affi- 6 davit to the Warren Commission denying that Oswald was ever a 7 CIA agent, was he relying on any investigative reports, or woul 8 you.say he was relying on oral reports by his subordinates? 9 | Mr. Hartman. Well, as I said before, I don't know really 10 what he was relying on, but I assume that he relied on the. only 11 two basic channels that he had: One was the checks that I had 12 ||) made at Headquarters and in the U.S. and,.on the other hand, @ 13 the foreign checks that were made by the divisions. I don't 14 know of any other way that we could have gotten him any more 15 || information for his statement. 16 Mr. Genzman.. My question concerned the way this informa- 17 tion was presented to him. | 18 | Mr. Hartman. I don't know that. 19 Mr. Genzman. Thank you. 20 Il Do you know anyone who has ever used the name "Maurice 21 Bishop"? © 22 Mr. Hartman. No. 23 Mr. Genzman. Before your testimony here today, did you @ 24 talk with any one at the CIA concerning your testimony? . 95 Mr. Hartman. I told them that I would be coming here. HW 54756 Docld: 392763408 Page 79
Yd] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 © 24 25 79 Mr. Genzman. Did you talk about any substance of the testi- mony? Mr. Hartman. No. Mr. Genzman. Did you talk to anyone concerning the sub- stance of the interview you had with staff counsel Charles Berk? Mr. Hartman. Yes, after the interview. Mr. Genzman. I have no further questions. It is a policy of the Select Committee to allow each witness five minutes of time to expand on his previous answers or to clarify any of his previous answers or to offer any | additional information which he feels is relevant to the mandat of the Select Committee. At this time I would like to give you five minutes: to make whatever points you think are appropriate. Mr. Hartman. Well, the one question, or my answer to it, rather, bothers me a little. I did speak to others about comin here. Of course, I told my wife and I mentioned it to Mr. Rocca, who is going into the hospital. As I said, I also told ‘the fellows at the’ Agency whom you deal with about it; but I think the inference of your guestion is, was I-coached and, well, if not, I’m sorry, but I want to make it clear for the record that I was not coached in any manner or form, that the answers I have given are mine, and I will stand by them, that what I have said is correct and truthful to the best of my HW 54756 Docld:372963408 Page 60
1 recollection. 2 Memories are notoriously faulty. and I'll be the first to 3 concede if I am wrong. 4 I want to make one final statement in regard to this case 5 in the over-all. We have heard allegations concerning Oswald ma) and that he worked for CIA from the day following the assassi- 7 nation. Principally, I think the initial allegation was raised 8 by his mother in a distraught fashion, and I can. appreciate 9 her concern at the time. Her son was killed and dead and 10 accused of assassinating the President. © 11 I have actually tried to find any possible link between 12 Oswald and the Agency and I never could. I was very, very much ) 43 alert to this problem. I found it also at first very unusual 44 that the military didn't taIk to him or that the Bureau didn't 45 talk to him. I didn't have tht problem with the Agency itself 16 not talking with him for reasons I explained. We had so many “47 people that we could talk to that he was only a low level. ig || character . 19 . I cannot explain why the FBI or the services didn't talk 29 || to him. I think I have nothing else that I can add. 21 _ Mr. Genzman. For the record, I want to state that I was not 22 trying to make the inference that you were coached concerning “93 your testimony today. @ 24 II Mr. Hartman. Okay. 25 Mr. Genzman. I am glad that you clarified this point in HW 54756 DoclId: 37263408 Page 41
S HW 54756 _ 41 12 13 14 23 24 25 DoctlId: of the CIA, are you convinced that there is no way that Oswald been done. I would like to expand a little on that. 2263408 Page 6? 81 your statement. I have one additional question: ‘Based on your study of the. records and files and indices could have had some connection or relationship with the CIA which could have been kept secret from you by some means? Mr. Hartman. There just isn't any way that it could have If you use a person as a source, you've got to have money. You've got to pay your source. In order to pay someone you have to have records. You have to have an operational approval to use a person. There are procedures that are entailed here and no one, to my knowledge, has ever been able to use a person, that is, no one in the CIA, has ever been able to use a person as an agent or a source without a number of people down the line knowing it. You can't operate in a vacuum in an agency such as the CIA, not, I think, in. any intelligence agency. “there are approvals; there is a chain of command, and somewhere in. this chain there must be a record. Tt even checked, aS my memo says, the Medical Office, because you cannot use some- one in CIA unless you get a medical on him. That's basic policy; that's why I went there. The Operational Approval Section would have to grant .. approval to use someone. rt just cannot be. If the services had used him, they would have registered him. We checked there.| I checked every conceivable facet and came up with
10 10 42 @ 13 14 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 e 24 25° HW 54756 DoctId: 82 absolutely nothing; and I am today as convinced as-I was then - that Oswald had no connection whatsoever with CIA. Mr. Genzman. I would like to ask one further question, if ‘I may: Do you have. any opinion as to whether Oswald was ever developed as an agent or a source or an asset by any foreign intelligence agency, ' specifically the KGB, or the Cuban intelligence agency, DGI? Mr. Hartman. That's a very difficult question to answer:: because you are tyring to delve into the minds and feelings and records of anaother government, and you have no access. Al anybody can do is hypothesize, and that's what we have all been doing concerning that. I have my doubts about the KGB because, as I said, he was unstable and they knew it and I think he was causing them more problems than he was worth. He was constantly in their hair, i seems, even to the point where the niece of a KGB officer, I ‘think he was her uncle, was being badgered by this guy and he eventually married her. As far as the DGI is concerned, I don't see how they could have ever operated him or manipulated him. You have to have time with a person; you have to have access to him; and I don't think the Cubans were that well organized at that time that they could have spent hours debriefing him and talking with him and recruiting him and that type of thing. 263408 Page 63
83 ll 1 Certainly the KGB had the Opportunity, but, as I said, 2 I cannot visualize in my narrow experience that they have used 3 him, 4 Mr.  Genzman. I would now like to offer you any additiona 5 time which you feel is necessary to expand or clarify any of your 6 || previous statements. 7 Mr. Hartman. I can only say one other thing, and that 8 would be in regard to the last statement: Tf the Soviets ever ‘ 9 used him and, in effect, if-we can speculate that they got him 10 to kill our President, they are smart enough to realize that 4 they can't gain anything from that, that there would be an 12 immediate replacement who might even be tougher with them or ) 13 || through whom they might achieve a iot less than they did with 14 Kennedy. That type of thing about assassinating the top man 15 in the nation or the top two or three people, in my estimation, ig || that's basically not the job that an intelligence organization 17 does or is created to do. Possibly in dictatorships, fighting 18 each other and so on, in South American countries, where 19 somebody is always after the top man, that is another story; but 20 by and large I cannot see what Ehe KGB or the Soviet Union would have gained by assassinating President Kennedy if they really 21 had a hand in it. 22 23 Mr. Genzman. On behalf of the House Select.:Committee on oA Assassinations, I would like to thank you very much for 95 ‘testifying here today. HW 54756 DBocld: 39763406 Page 64
12 | 84 Mr. Hartman. It's been my pleasure. (Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., the deposition was concluded.) 10 11 12 19. 20 21 23 | @ 24 25 HW 54756 Docld:32963408 Page 85