Oliver Stone at JFK Files Hearing

Mrs Luna (00:00):

… of Tennessee and Mr. Moskowitz of Florida are permitted to participate in this hearing for the purpose of questions. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement.

(00:17)
Good afternoon, esteemed colleagues, distinguished guests and fellow Americans watching today we stand at a pivotal moment, a juncture where history demands our unflinching attention and our unwavering commitment to the truth. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22nd, 1963 remains one of the most defining and haunting events in our nation's history. For over six decades, questions have lingered, shrouded in secrecy and speculation. With the recent efforts made to declassify over 80,000 pages of classified documents, fighting against the request of redactions combined with prior releases under the previous administration, we have an unprecedented opportunity to peel back the layers of the dark day and lay bare the facts for all to see for the first time in years. We are seeing a complete cooperation between the U.S. government enterprise.

(01:05)
Today marks a historical day on our nation's history. After over 80,000 pages were declassified by this administration and previous documents declassified under previous admins were located at the National Archives, it is time to present the findings to the American people so that they can determine the truth for themselves. What has been alarming to me is the amount of stonewalling the federal government put forward to hide this information from the American people. The days of over classification in the name of national security is coming to an end. The revelations emerging from these files are nothing short of staggering discoveries that challenge the long held assumptions and raise profound questions about what we've been told happened on that day. Investigators pouring over these pages have uncovered evidence that demands our scrutiny, evidence that suggests the official narrative may have been incomplete at best and at worst, deliberately obscured.

(01:54)
It has become apparent that in this investigation some factions of the federal government did not want to be transparent. This type of perspective cannot exist in a free and fair society. And today we have called some great witnesses. To be quite honest, we had more, but for various reasons those individuals did not want to come forward. I also understand the implications that this has on the family and it is not our objective to reopen old wounds, but to ensure that what happened to President John F. Kennedy can never happen again in U.S. History. That can only be done if the truth is known to the American people and the facts are able to speak for themselves. The courage of those who are here today, experts in their fields, underscores the gravity of this moment. Their testimony will help us piece together a puzzle that has been fragmented for too long.

(02:39)
Let me be clear. There are sincere concerns and discrepancies regarding the Warren Commission pushing forward a narrative without all the facts and according to testimony of various witnesses, omitting evidence. I would also further argue that the handling of this investigation has largely contributed to the deep distrust the American people have had with the federal government and various intelligence agencies. It is those facts that I hope to present to the American people today. For years we've relied on a report that while maybe well-intentioned was built on a foundation of omissions and half-truths. Now with these newly declassified documents, we can confront those discrepancies, whether it's inconsistencies in witness accounts, overlooked intelligence, or the troubling indications of interference that investigators are just now bringing to light. This is not about rewriting history for the sake of sensation. It's about honoring our duty to the truth and to the citizens we serve.

(03:32)
As we begin this hearing, I ask you to approach it with open minds and steadfast resolve. The American people have waited long enough. They deserve answers, not obstruction. They deserve a government that trusts them with the unvarnished reality, not one that hides behind locked vaults. What we uncover today may unsettle us, but it will also empower us to learn from the past to protect our future and to ensure that transparency triumphs over secrecy. Let us proceed with the seriousness this moment demands for the sake of justice, for the memory of President Kennedy and for the soul of our republic. Thank you. I would like to now recognize ranking member Garcia for the purpose of making an opening statement.

Mr Garcia (04:10):

Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman Luna. Before I begin, I just want to just publicly first congratulate you on a tremendous effort, obviously, within the Congress and your support of new parents in the Congress and I also want to recognize the hard work that many folks from our caucus as well participated in, but I think that was a very courageous step forward, so I want to just congratulate you on your success so far and we look forward to the days ahead there. Now I've been asked to serve as the ranking Democrat on this task force to ensure that we remain focused on transparency and have a focus on the truth. Now, declassification of [inaudible 00:04:46] documents and careful review of the research can't always provide us new and meaningful information to the public on a variety of topics. Now for this hearing, I do have some broad remarks about declassification, but I want to start with, I think, really grounding us in who President Kennedy was and some facts about the president and his legacy.

(05:05)
Now we know that President Kennedy's assassination was a defining moment in our history and a genuine trauma for millions of Americans and people across the world. It has been, of course, an object of interest for decades. It's also a very human tragedy. President Kennedy was a son, a father, a brother, and a husband, and we should never lose sight of his family and they're having to revisit this moment over and over again as, of course, it's an important moment in American history. And I also don't want to lose sight of President Kennedy's legacy. President Kennedy stood proudly for American leadership. He fought for values all over the world. In the face of Russian threats, he told the free people of Europe that he stood with them and he told the world, of course, over and over again that America would stand for peace and for justice.

(05:53)
And I want to read a quote that he said that he said. He said that America would "Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." We know he founded the Peace Corps, USAID and his patience and restraint guided the world through the Cuban Missile crisis. He reminded us that, and I quote, "Civility is not a weakness and sincerity is always subject to proof." Of course, he broke barriers with our nation's first Catholic president and in his inaugural address he reminded us that we all have the power to abolish poverty as a single important mission of the United States and the world. He believed in service, he believed in government and that government could achieve big things. He also, of course, fought for everyday things that Americans cared about. He fought for unions. He fought for federal workers to organize. He increased the minimum wage. And he laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Act and called upon Americans to address the moral crisis of racial injustice.

(06:54)
President Kennedy was actually the president that coined the phrase, "A rising tide lifts all boats." It's a vision of the world, of course, where we all work together to make the country a better place for everyone, and I do not want to lose sight of his legacy in today's hearing or in any future conversations about this, of course, horrific moment in American history. His values are values that motivate us all to this day.

(07:17)
Now I also share the Chairwoman's interest in transparency and in transparency in a variety of topics. We've worked together on various issues that relates to UAPs, other declassification issues, and we know that in the past the government has overclassified documents and we think that is a known fact that we should all agree on. This has been a bipartisan priority and discussion for decades. Now, in the past we've had the House Select Committee, of course, the JFK Records Act and releases of records including the most recent, of course, tens of thousands of pages that were recently released. We know that today our federal agencies obviously have in the past obscured information and key facts from the public for too long. Overclassification at the expense of transparency is something we should all take seriously, but also note that it's incredibly serious and a delicate subject. Now the CIA and the FBI, to be clear, particularly from this period of time in history, were deeply flawed institutions.

(08:16)
And to be clear again, the CIA and the FBI routinely overclassified documents in many instances, not just on the subject of President Kennedy and the assassination, but in multiple other subjects as well. And so I think it's important that we understand that particularly during this period of time, there was an overclassification of documents on a variety of subjects. So it's of course responsible that we seek to facts, that we don't speculate, but certainly also allow new information to come into this hearing and for the public.

(08:47)
It's important that we recognize that this process and safeguards do exist for a reason and I hope our witnesses today will focus their testimony on information which is grounded in facts, in truth, and they provide this task force with more information. I hope that we have an informative and respectful hearing and I yield back. Thank you, Chairwoman.

Mrs Luna (09:05):

Thank you Mr. Garcia. Thank you Mr. Garcia. Our witnesses today are Mr. Oliver Stone. Mr. Stone is an Academy Award-winning director and has directed more than 20 feature films including JFK in 1991; Mr. James DiEugenio is a researcher and expert on the assassination of former President Kennedy. He's an accomplished author and has written numerous books regarding the assassination of President Kennedy: Mr. Jefferson Morley. Mr. Morley is a researcher and expert on the assassination of former President Kennedy. He is currently the editor of JFK Facts. And Mr. John Davidson. Mr. Davidson is senior counsel and director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center where he works on a number of issues pertaining to data privacy and protection. Pursuant to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise their right hands. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God?

Witnesses (10:15):

I do.

Mrs Luna (10:17):

Thank you. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. The task force certainly appreciates you for being here today and we look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to six minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it is on and the members can hear you. When you begin to speak the light in front of you will turn green. After five minutes, light will turn yellow, and after six minutes you'll get gaveled. I now recognize Mr. Morley to give an opening statement.

Jefferson Morley (10:56):

Thank you to all the House Task Force on Declassification. It's an honor to testify before you. It's a solemn responsibility to report on the disturbing new revelations that have emerged from the newest JFK files. And it is a grave matter to assert that CIA officers were culpable or complicit in the death of a President. So I want fact-checkers to have all the evidence that I've used to support my testimony today. I speak with the benefit of three decades of reporting on the JFK story. My first article on the role of the CIA in the events that led to the assassination was published in the Washington Post 30 years ago this week. As I pursued this story, I practiced the tried and true techniques that I learned at the Post. Knock on doors, get two sources, follow the money, start with the cover-up, and proceed to the crime, and always ask the question, what did they know and when did they know it?

(12:10)
I did not start with a conspiracy theory and I did not go looking for a smoking gun. I started with an open mind and looked for a fact pattern. As I interviewed and reported and researched on this story and the role of the CIA, I consistently avoided judgment on who was responsible, individually or institutionally. My research and reporting simply didn't give me a clear answer to the question, who killed JFK? What was clear over time is a new fact pattern. In the spring of 2023, the CIA fully declassified for the first time, its pre-assassination file on Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin who denied killing the president and was killed himself in police custody before he could defend himself. I have a copy here of the CIA's pre-assassination file on Lee Harvey Oswald and I'm submitting it for the record. The declassified Oswald file runs to, and fact-checkers can confirm this, 198 pages.

(13:23)
In the fall of 1963, in November of 1963, this file was held in the office of James Angleton counterintelligence chief at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, not five miles from the White House where President Kennedy lived and worked. To be sure, the declassified Oswald file is not a smoking gun. I showed it to journalists whose judgment I trust and they shrugged. They said, "This is evidence of incompetence." "CYA," they said: cover your ass. I didn't quite believe that, but I couldn't prove them wrong until March 18th. That was the day that the National Archives began posting long-secret JFK assassination records that had been withheld from public view for decades. I started by looking at nine declassified documents about Mr. Angleton.

(14:23)
He was the man who compiled the Oswald file and when I came to a long-secret transcript of Angleton's testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, my reservations about passing judgment on the responsibility vanished. One newly declassified passage showed that Angleton had lied under oath about his surveillance of Oswald's correspondence while he lived in the Soviet Union from 1959 to 1962. And that, for me, was a tipping point. The transcript which the CIA withheld from public view for half a century confirmed a disturbing fact. James Angleton is the third senior CIA officer known to have lied under oath about what they knew about the alleged assassin Oswald, before JFK was killed. The first was Deputy Director Richard Helms. He lied to the Warren Commission in May, 1964 when he said under oath the CIA had only "Minimal information about Oswald before JFK was killed." 198 pages of information cannot be truthfully described as minimal.

(15:43)
The second CIA officer who lied was George Ioannidis, chief of the Covert Action Branch of the Miami Station in 1963. His agents in the top secret AMSPELL program generated propaganda about Oswald's pro-Castro activities both before and after the president was killed. 15 years later in 1978, the CIA inserted Ioannidis into the House JFK investigation and he blocked any investigation of contacts between Oswald and his AMSPELL agents. Obstructing Congress cannot be considered evidence of incompetence. And this is what I believe in summary: one false statement might be incompetence. A second false statement might be CYA for the first false statement, but three false statements by top CIA officers about Kennedy's accused killer? That is a pattern. It's a pattern of misconduct. It's a pattern of malfeasance.

(16:46)
If three police officers lie about their knowledge of a homicide defendant that cannot be considered exculpatory evidence. To the contrary, it shows guilty knowledge and criminal culpability. It is, in a word, incriminating. The new fact pattern leads to a new conclusion. We know now what they knew about Oswald and when they knew it. We know now that Richard Helms, James Angleton and George Ioannidis were responsible for or complicit in the death of the President either by criminal negligence or covert action. My recommendations to the task force are one, secure and release the personnel file of George Ioannidis. And two, ask the CIA to provide a public statement answering the question, why did these three men lie to JFK investigators? The answers will help fulfill the task force goal, the president's goal, and the people's goal of full and complete JFK disclosure. Thank you.

Mrs Luna (17:57):

I now recognize Mr. Stone for an opening statement.

Oliver Stone (18:09):

Thank you Chairman Luna, Chairwoman. It's a pleasure to be here. I was here 33 years ago. I was sat in one of these rooms in Washington and I told the congressmen and women about this movie I had just made, JFK. And half of them were wondering what all the fuss was about, it was just a movie. And the other half were passionate in responding to the cries of their constituents that demanded no more national security reasons preventing this from getting to clarity on our president's assassination. The Warren commission of 1964, as it turned out, got us to second base with a lot of unknowns. And what was that? Obfuscations. And it all got crazier and crazier, sides taken on this and on that. And what happened that awful day. It wasn't clear as to who the heck did this, killed the President in a high noon in Dealey Plaza in Dallas in November '22.

(19:35)
And then year by grudging year we learned in increments, a little, but not much more. Often one step forward and two steps back. And now it's 2025, 58 years since Jack Kennedy was killed in '63. Repeat, almost 60 years. That's about two generations, let's say from 1900 to 1960. As a result of the 1992 hearings that resulted from my film, in which I participated, Congress passed the JFK Records Act, which firmly said all the records out, unless you have a strong reason to protest our national security. All the reasons, all the records, out. Which is exactly what this case was, a national security matter. Our president was killed. What is more important than that?

(20:48)
Well, the Assassination Records Review Board really tried for a few years till 1998 to get those records out, but they didn't get any cooperation, although mandated by law, from the Central Intelligence Agency, which operated and still operates as a taxpayer-funded intelligence agency that arrogantly considers itself outside our laws. They say things like, "We will get back to you on that," and they never do. Or they give me a day and I'll come up with a reason why this matter is a national security matter, et cetera, et cetera. Nothing, nothing of importance has been revealed by the CIA in all these years. Although we know from other records that there's a illegal criminal activities in every facet of our foreign policy in practically every country on earth. Just to begin Cuba, Vietnam, Indonesia, Egypt, South America, the Middle East, we could write a whole separate history of our country from the viewpoint of the countries. Yet we do not know and are not allowed to know anything about the CIA's true history of the United States, which is almost, I believe, the real story.

(22:39)
There are many people, some in this room today who do care and remember the details and the clues. There are real people alive with the integrity of a true detective like that of the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, willing year by year to track this cold, cold case, to not so much prove it or debunk it, but essentially to know if this so-called democracy of ours has a foundation or a future, a meaning or a purpose for our country, to mean something more than its wealth or its military might to the people here and all over the world who loved President John Kennedy, who know he really wanted peace in our time.

(23:40)
And by that, he said clearly in one of his greatest speeches, not a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war, but a genuine peace, a peace he described so beautifully, that we could all share in because we all live on this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures and we are all mortal. Can we return to a world where we can trust our government to level with us, the people for which this government exists? And if some people in power betrayed our constitution and chose the path of war over peace, let the rest of us see past the lies and let us hear what we think happened.

(24:43)
And with that knowledge, let us forgive but not forget the transgressions and let us praise the representatives, Democrat and Republican, who believe with the vast majority of the American people, that the truth is the greatest treasure a Socratic soul can attain in this lifetime. I ask the committee to reopen what the Warren Commission failed miserably to complete. I ask you in good faith outside all political considerations to reinvestigate the assassination of this President Kennedy from the scene of the crime to the courtroom, which never happened, but which means the chain of custody on the rifle, the bullets, the fingerprints, the autopsy that defies belief, and that if it were a murder, we'd have given to the poorest man dying in a gutter.

(25:57)
Let us reinvestigate the fingerprints of intelligence all over Lee Harvey Oswald from 1959 to his violent death in 1963. And most importantly, this CIA whose muddy footprints are all over this case, a true interrogation. James Angleton before he died, who was one of the original members of the CIA, was talking about Dulles and Helms and the others, what he called the Grandmasters, and he's a Catholic. Angleton was a Catholic in search perhaps of repentance before his death. He did say "If you were in a room with them, you are in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell. I guess I will see them soon." This is our democracy. This is our presidency. It belongs to us. Treat us with respect. Thank you.

Mrs Luna (27:18):

Thank you Mr. Stone. I now recognize Mr. DiEugenio for an opening statement.

James DiEugenio (27:24):

Thank you and thanks for having this hearing. I think it's an important subject and I spent about 32 years on it.

Mrs Luna (27:32):

Sir, please turn on your microphone. Thank you.

James DiEugenio (27:35):

Do I have to hit this?

Mrs Luna (27:36):

Yes, sir.

James DiEugenio (27:37):

Is that better?

Mrs Luna (27:37):

Big red button.

James DiEugenio (27:38):

Okay, good. Why are we here? Why are we dealing with a subject that occurred over 60 years ago? Well, the JFK case is one that simply will not go away no matter how much the MSM tries to minimize it or make it disappear. 65% of the public does not buy the Warren Commission verdict

James DiEugenio (28:00):

… of Oswald as a lone assassin. But even more startling, and this is very important. I think it speaks to the point that Mr. Garcia was talking about. Over 90% of the public believes that something monumental happened after the Kennedy assassination. That the United States went from a country that was bathed in triumph and optimism after World War II, to one that was now covered with cynicism and skepticism. All right?

(28:33)
So as you can see, me, Oliver and Jeff are not alone in those feelings. All right? Now what's the immediate reason why we're here today is, well, according to a congressional statute, we should not be here. And I'm sure you're aware of this because the JFK Records Collection Act said that in October of 2017, everything on the Kennedy case should be declassified no matter what. And President Trump actually talked about this about a week and a half before it was supposed to be done. And he said he was looking forward to doing this.

(29:19)
And by the way, if you know the statute, he was the only one who could stop it from happening. So on the day this was supposed to occur, he was visited by some higher-ups in the intel community and under their, I believe, unwise advice, he reversed what he had said. He did declassify some documents but not all. But before anybody jumps on me, I don't want to say that this is a partisan issue because President Biden was pretty much the same thing. All right? And some would say like my friend, Andrew Eiler here, that he might've been even worse on this subject.

(30:03)
Now during the last presidential campaign, candidate Trump was reminded of this reversal. It was not by the MSM, of course. It was by two independent broadcasters, Joe Rogan and Andrew Napolitano. And I think this was the impetus for him to sign the executive order, which he did, and to his credit, he added the much-ignored King case and the RFK case.

(30:32)
Now this committee has decided to back that executive order up, which I think is salutary. So hopefully we will now see the final documents on the JFK released over 60 years after his assassination and hopefully the beginning of an excavation on the RFK and the MLK cases. It's a cliché, but it's true. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy. It's the enemy of the Republican form of government and misinformed or uninformed public cannot make good decisions and a compliant press helps cushion the public from that fact.

(31:16)
And this process leads to a loss of belief in both the government and the media. And you can examine every poll out there, okay? And they'll tell you that when President Kennedy took office, 75% of the public believed in what the government was saying. By the '90s, it was down to 19%. All right? The biggest year drop was the year the Warren Commission was issued. All right?

(31:47)
Now from the beginning, the FBI and the CIA, as these two gentlemen have mentioned, have refused to divulge all the information they have had about the murder of President Kennedy. And I want to give a popular example which I'm sure everybody here is familiar with. I'm sure you're all familiar because it actually made it in the MSM about the Schlesinger memo.

(32:11)
This was the memo written by Arthur Schlesinger at JFK's request to do a top-down reorganization of the CIA because he believed that he was deceived and lied to about the Bay of Pigs invasion. All right? Now I'm sure you also know that that was censored, about two of the most important pages were censored by the CIA. Okay? These dealt with a very important subject, which is to control the State Department by the Central Intelligence Agency. That many of these State Department employees overseas are not really State Department employees, they are really CIA guys undercover.

(32:56)
And Schlesinger cited the Paris office, all right? Which is very important because these guys are trying to overthrow De Gaulle at the time and JFK gets on the phone with the ambassador and says, "Look, I don't know what these guys are doing half the time, okay? So I don't even know if we're involved with this covertly or not, all right?" And he was trying, and Schlesinger's memo was trying to get control of that.

(33:19)
Now my friend, Andrew, gave me… It's bad enough that the two pages were cut, but the CIA version of the Schlesinger memo, and you should all know this. The CIA version of the Schlesinger memo cut it by 60%. All right? And of the remaining pages, about 40% of those pages were totally redacted. And this is what I mean. How can you be an informed person when you don't even know this stuff? When you have a first gatekeeper, in this case, the Central Intelligence Agency keeping you from the wishes of what JFK and Arthur Schlesinger were trying to do. All right? All right. Now any attorney, which I'm sure we have some here, and any investigator will tell you that you cannot conduct a full investigation unless you have the whole case file. Well, here we are in 2025 still looking for the end of that case file on the JFK case.

(34:25)
Now let me relate in closing two episodes from the last attempt of getting all these documents out there, which I'm sure you're familiar with, the ARRB, the Assassination Records and Review Board, which my friend here said lasted from 1994 to 1998.

(34:46)
When the board had its first meeting with the CIA, they flashed a memo on the wall and they said, "We're going to declassify this unless you have a humdinger of an excuse." All right? And the CIA liaison said, "Well, I don't have anything right now but give me a couple minutes and I'll think of something." This is what these guys have gotten away with. This is what they're used to.

(35:14)
Now when the FBI came in for their first meeting, the review board did the same thing. Unless you give us a great excuse, we're going to declassify this document. The FBI liaison came in with a lawyer. The FBI liaison was so shocked he turned to the lawyer and said, "Can they really do that?" And the lawyer said, "Yes. They can." All right?

(35:42)
So this is the kind of arrogance that you're going to be dealing with. All right? So I really hope that people will learn from the past, learn from these experiences. You got a difficult road ahead of yourselves and I congratulate you on trying to change things. The FBI and the CIA should not have the last word on JFK's murder. You should.

Mrs Luna (36:09):

Thank you, sir. I'd like to now recognize Mr. Davisson for an opening statement.

John Davisson (36:17):

Excuse me. Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Garcia and members of the task force, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the privacy, transparency and accountability issues raised by the recent release of documents from the President Kennedy assassination records collection.

(36:31)
My name is John Davisson, I'm the director of litigation and senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center or EPIC. EPIC is an independent non-profit research organization established in 1994 to protect privacy, freedom of expression and democratic values in the information age.

(36:48)
As this task force knows well, the assassination of President Kennedy was an event of surpassing historical and political significance, one that has engendered more than 60 years of investigation, analysis, and debate. Today's hearing highlights the critical role that open government laws, and in particular the JFK Records Act have played in informing that discourse. As the Supreme Court has written, open government laws are one of the key mechanisms for holding the governors accountable to the governed.

(37:16)
With that in mind, Congress has rightly established a robust array of public disclosure requirements for federal entities, including the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the JFK Records Act. Having spent decades to secure the transparency of government records, EPIC firmly supports the objectives of the JFK Records Act and the fulfillment of its disclosure mandate. But given that many federal records contain sensitive personal information, Congress has also made it clear that government transparency must be balanced with the protection of privacy.

(37:49)
Disclosing personal information is inherently invasive and can expose individuals to a broad spectrum of secondary harms, including identity theft, fraud, reputational harm, psychological harm, stalking, harassment, doxing and vigilantism. Accordingly, the FOIA, the FACA and the JFK Records Act all established that the disclosure of records is not required to the extent that such dissemination would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(38:16)
Together with the Privacy Act, these provisions ensure in principle that the federal government only disseminates personal information to the extent that the public interest and disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the individual to whom the information pertains. To fulfill this dual mandate of transparency and privacy protection, federal agencies consistently conduct a detailed review of documents prior to release redacting personal information or sometimes unfolding records in full where disclosure would cause unwarranted privacy harm.

(38:45)
For example, when processing FOIA requests the National Archives is ordinarily careful to withhold records about a living individual that if released would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In the past, NARA has also conducted extensive reviews of documents subject to the JFK Records Act to identify and request the withholding of any Social Security numbers or financial information of living persons.

(39:09)
By all appearances, these procedures and safeguards were completely bypassed in last month's hurried release of 60,000 pages from the JFK records collection, which led to the public disclosure of Social Security numbers and other private information of more than 400 former congressional staffers and other former officials, some of them still living.

(39:28)
The shocking violation of privacy has compounded a national trauma and distracted from Congress's stated goal of informing the public through the JFK Records Act. Security experts as well as those directly harmed by the breach have deemed it outrageous, sloppy, unprofessional, astonishing, foolish, incompetent, egregious, almost criminal, and a breach of a first-grade elementary-level rule of security.

(39:54)
NARA has reportedly begun to reach out to individuals affected by the breach and the White House has promised free credit monitoring services and new Social Security numbers to those affected, but these steps are too little, too late. The bell can't be unrung.

(40:07)
There are several lessons to draw from this episode. First, Congress has mandated that agencies take steps to prevent unwarranted invasions of privacy resulting from records disclosures for good reason. This incident illustrates why those procedures must be followed even when logistically or politically inconvenient. Congress should explore updates to the FOIA, the Privacy Act, and other federal records statutes to ensure that such procedures are both readily enforceable and followed without exception.

(40:34)
Second, while prompt disclosure of public records is essential, fire drills that make it impossible to ensure the redaction of sensitive personal information are a threat to privacy and to the public. Although it's difficult to see how any agency could have completed an ongoing review of 60,000 pages within the 24 hours abruptly allotted, this incident serves as a reminder of the need to adequately fund public records offices throughout the federal government to ensure that they can carry out their weighty and growing responsibilities in a timely fashion.

(41:04)
Third, this breach while deeply serious is a drop in the bucket compared to the wrongful disclosure of personal information now occurring within and between federal agencies, failing to rein in the ongoing government-wide misuse of systems of records by largely unaccountable actors risks far more dangerous consequences. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Mrs Luna (41:29):

Thank you, sir. I now recognize myself for some questions. Mr. Morley, why do you say that the Oswald file was sitting on the desk of James Angleton a week before the assassination? Can you really prove that?

Jefferson Morley (41:43):

Yes. I can. In the Oswald file on page 254 and on page 275, you'll see a routing slip on two FBI reports about Oswald. And on November 15th, 1963 and November 14th, 1963, you'll see the initials JAR on the routing slip. That stands for Jane Atherton Roman. She was the liaison officer for Mr. Angleton. So when she signed for those two FBI reports, we have proof positive that they were on Mr. Angleton's desk.

Mrs Luna (42:18):

Are you saying that the three men, Angleton, Helms and Joe Needus plotted to kill the president?

Jefferson Morley (42:23):

No. I am not saying that. I'm saying that they were engaged in covert activities related to Lee Harvey Oswald that have never been disclosed and that's the imperative for the task force to obtain those records of that secret operation.

Mrs Luna (42:37):

Real quick. I'd like to enter into the record document that was actually one of these declassified documents of the CIA rejecting the lone gunman theory. Without objection so ordered. Mr. Morley, who was George Joe Needus and why do you emphasize the importance of getting this file?

Jefferson Morley (42:56):

George Joe Needus was a career CIA officer. In 1963, he was chief of the covert action branch of the Miami station. His agents had contact with Oswald before the assassination. His agents in the top secret program, MSPEL, generated propaganda about Oswald's pro-Castro activities both before and after the assassination.

(43:20)
When Mr. Joe Needus was questioned by congressional investigators here on Capitol Hill in 1978, he was asked who was running these Cuban students who had all this contact with Oswald? The investigators had no idea that they were looking at the answer to their question. And Mr. Joe Needus who had been running that Cuban student group told congressional investigators, "I don't know. I'll get back to you."

(43:47)
That was obstruction of Congress. That was an obstruction of an investigation of the president's assassination. His records have never been fully released by the Central Intelligence Agency and they obviously should be.

Mrs Luna (43:59):

Mr. Morley, you actually had written an article specifically addressing a whistleblower that had reports at the CIA potentially showing information that Oswald was in Mexico City. Can you speak more to that?

Jefferson Morley (44:14):

I was approached a few years ago by a man who had worked inside the CIA, had a very high security clearance, and in 2018 he came to me and said he was concerned that there was a JFK assassination document that he had read while he was working at the CIA and he was afraid that it would never become public. The man was taking considerable legal risk by talking to me. He was talking about classified or potentially classified information.

(44:40)
So I published his story last year without his name, which is not something that I usually do. I don't like stories with anonymous sources, but I felt that it was important to get out and he felt it was important too. I have spoken with him and he says he's willing to come public and tell his name under his own story with assurances that he will not face legal retaliation. I hope that's something that can be arranged in the near future.

Mrs Luna (45:06):

Thank you. Mr. Stone, if you could for a moment, you had mentioned earlier about some anomalies in the autopsy. Would you be able to speak to that? I have about a minute and 19 left.

Oliver Stone (45:19):

One of the things that we did in our documentary JFK Revisited in 2021 was show as much as we could about the autopsy, including the fact that there are 40 people still alive as far as I know who witnessed at Parkland and at Bethesda a large gaping wound in the back of President Kennedy's right head indicating a shot from the front that blew out the rear of his… And they all point, if you look there's a picture, they all point to the same place on camera right here in the back of his head. That's one very disturbing point.

(46:08)
Additionally, there is a lot of inconsistencies in what was seen and done. The tracking of the bullet, the concept of a magic bullet, which deserves your reexamination and I think Jim is more expert in this than I, if I can point to him. He's my researcher.

Mrs Luna (46:35):

Well, thank you. I'm sure that will be in the next line of questioning. I'd like to now recognize Mr. Garcia for five minutes.

Mr Garcia (46:40):

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you again to our witnesses for all of your testimony. I just want to run through a few questions that might bring some clarity on some of the opening statements and I do want to just recognize also and restate the concerns that we should all have about over classification over the last few decades, especially when it came to the CIA and the FBI.

(47:03)
Mr. Morley, I know you didn't say this explicitly in your testimony, I just want to clarify. I think it's good for the record. Now we know that your research, of course, is very focused on what the US government knew about Lee Harvey Oswald. I think you made that also very clear. You believe Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots who killed President Kennedy. Is that correct, sir?

Jefferson Morley (47:23):

He was not solely responsible for the President's-

Mr Garcia (47:26):

Microphone.

Jefferson Morley (47:27):

No. I don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. No. I don't think the evidence supports that.

Mr Garcia (47:32):

You don't think the evidence supports that he fired the shots?

Jefferson Morley (47:34):

He might have fired a gun. He was not the intellectual author of the President's death.

Mr Garcia (47:38):

Okay. Now I wanted to clarify because I think the firing of the shots. I just wanted to clarify that you do believe that he fired the shots?

Jefferson Morley (47:44):

No. I don't. That has not been determined by the evidence.

Mr Garcia (47:48):

Okay. Well, I wanted just get you to clarify that. Now I want to also just see a few points. Mr. Morley, you have said that the CIA was not forthcoming with Congress in past investigations, correct, sir?

Jefferson Morley (47:59):

Yes.

Mr Garcia (48:00):

Okay. I know you have said that CIA counterintelligence was also either new information or could have been responsible in some sort of broader plot, is that correct, sir?

Jefferson Morley (48:13):

Correct.

Mr Garcia (48:14):

Okay. But have said, I think just to correct what you said, you have said though that there is no direct evidence as of today that the CIA committed the assassination. Is that correct?

Jefferson Morley (48:26):

I would say that the fact pattern that has emerged in last month shows culpability or complicity in the President's death.

Mr Garcia (48:33):

But no direct evidence. Is that correct, sir?

Jefferson Morley (48:35):

We have very direct evidence of the CIA surveillance of Oswald.

Mr Garcia (48:39):

No. I am not asking about that. I agree with you, sir. Direct evidence that the CIA is connected to the assassination?

Jefferson Morley (48:45):

All of these events connect the CIA to the assassination/

Mr Garcia (48:48):

And I understand that, sir. I'm just telling you my interpretation of what's been presented is that I have not seen direct evidence. I'm not saying, by the way, that there haven't been that the CIA or the FBI haven't been involved in a variety of covering up information in the past. We know that to be true, but I just want to make sure that I'm very clear that I have not seen direct evidence yet.

Jefferson Morley (49:07):

Okay.

Mr Garcia (49:09):

Thank you. I want to just recognize again, the overclassification issue is an issue and I appreciate that clarification. I also think it's important that we're very clear with the public that no one should be defending the CIA or the FBI, particularly from this period of time. I think they were involved in very questionable practices, not just on this issue, but on a variety of issues so I understand that.

(49:35)
I want to also just so that note that we should follow of course the facts wherever they go. Mr. Morley, in the run-up to this hearing, I know that there was some public reporting about this video that has been referenced. It's never before seen video of the shooting. Now that video itself is not a secret. I mean, JFK researchers have known about this video for a few years. Is that correct?

Jefferson Morley (49:55):

For decades. Yes.

Mr Garcia (49:56):

Okay. And the film is not definitive about Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the incident?

Jefferson Morley (50:03):

No. It is not.

Mr Garcia (50:04):

Okay. And it's not regarded as overly important by serious JFK researchers. Would you agree with that?

Jefferson Morley (50:11):

Correct.

Mr Garcia (50:11):

Okay. And it has never been a factor in major analysis in the causes of JFK assassination. Is that also correct?

Jefferson Morley (50:18):

Not in mine and not in any of the researchers I work with.

Mr Garcia (50:22):

Okay. Thank you. And I think it's important to clarify that because I think there's a lot of speculation and interest in the video, but I think we should be very clear about what the video actually is. Also, I know as it relates to the rollout of the JFK files, it also included a lot of, I think, personal information. Mr. Davisson, I just want to turn to you for a minute.

(50:43)
One of my concerns, of course, has been that a lot of personal information was actually released and has actually caused harm to certain folks. Can you just kind of speak to some of the concerns about the way that was released that would be helpful?

John Davisson (50:55):

Sure. So the National Archives was aware, as was the National Security Council from Public Reporting, that these records contained a substantial amount of personal information, including Social Security numbers, which are consistently redacted in public records requests and in prior disclosures under the JFK Records Act, and proceeded to complete this rollout with a sort of abrupt 24 hour deadline at the end without taking the steps that are ordinarily taken to redact that information and to ensure that privacy is protected.

(51:35)
And as I indicated in my initial statement, there's a whole host of harms that can come from that. Obviously, it's deeply inconvenient for your Social Security number to be published. The White House has said they will issue new Social Security numbers, but there's a lot of harm that can happen in the meantime, and updating that information for an individual is tremendously [inaudible 00:51:55]

Mr Garcia (51:54):

Thank you. My time is concluded. I just want to add to that point that as we declassify and work with the archives and others, we've got to make sure that people's personal information, of course, isn't being used in a way that's negative [inaudible 00:52:07] family. So thank you.

John Davisson (52:07):

Agreed.

Mrs. Luna (52:08):

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. And I will now recognize myself for five minutes. First of all, I want to say thank you to all of our witnesses who are here today. I also believe, I want to say that the American people deserve transparency, not just on JFK files, MLK, Epstein list, all the things. I also want to say I'm grateful to President Trump for keeping good on his promise for transparency.

(52:33)
This is a man who literally also took a bullet for his country. And I agree with you, Mr. Stone, on your testimony in your opening statement. Giving our country, giving our democracy meaning and a purpose for a nation and that to me personally means getting to the bottom of the truth. Getting the truth out of whatever three-letter agency is hiding information, whether it's from Congress, whether it's from the American people, but sunshine literally is the best medicine.

(53:03)
And we've just seen over the last few years regardless of your politics, but we saw 51 intelligence leaders sign a letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop was fake. Turns out that was a cover-up. We saw presidential candidate and Donald Trump spied on by the political opposition. We saw Biden's healthcare, his health, the previous administration lied to the American people about the president's health. They called his falling-down cheap fakes.

(53:38)
We saw the origins of COVID covered up by a government. We saw documents after documents hidden from the American people, Donald Trump was treated differently when they found documents at Mar-a-Lago versus the way Joe Biden was treated when they found documents in his garage. The government tried to cover it up, tried to cover for him. We were lied to about drones just in the last few months.

(54:05)
And so when we talk about this, the deep state, not only was it around during JFK's assassination, but it's here today. It is right before our eyes. And they are doing this in real time with regards to the Epstein list, which the government still has not released today. And the American people deserve to know who rich and powerful is on that list and who the government is covering up for.

(54:33)
So for decades we've seen this happen, and I'll get to a few questions. Mr. Morley, I want to start with you first. You said according to your testimony in asking what did the CIA know and when did they know it? What do you think that is? What is the answer to that question?

Jefferson Morley (54:50):

I want to preface my remarks by saying I'm a liberal Democrat and I don't shy away from that. That's part of my reporting and that's part of my reputation for straight shooting. What did the CIA know about Lee Harvey Oswald and when did they know it? A whole lot. 198 pages worth of information were on the CIA's desk when President Kennedy left for Dallas. So that foundational fact should guide us in understanding what happened.

Mrs. Luna (55:20):

So who do you think fired the shot?

Jefferson Morley (55:22):

I don't know.

Mrs. Luna (55:23):

You don't know? But you don't believe it was Lee Harvey Oswald?

Jefferson Morley (55:26):

Oswald was not the intellectual author of Kennedy's death even if he fired a gun that day.

Mrs. Luna (55:30):

Who do you think was the intellectual author of Kennedy's death?

Jefferson Morley (55:34):

Kennedy's enemies high in his own government. Is as specific as I can be based on the available evidence. Probably CIA and Pentagon.

Mrs. Luna (55:43):

How long had the CIA been surveying Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination attempt?

Jefferson Morley (55:47):

Four years.

Mrs. Luna (55:48):

Four years? And what are some of the highlights of the CIA's pre-assassination file on Lee Harvey Oswald?

Jefferson Morley (55:54):

They started reading his mail on November 9th, 1959, and they intercepted a number of letters between him

Jefferson Morley (56:00):

… him and his mother. Those letters were forwarded to James Angleton in the summer of 1962. In the summer of 1963, Oswald attempted to infiltrate the CIA's favorite Cubans in New Orleans. He was arrested. The FBI sent reports on Oswald's arrest to Angleton's staff. They knew that he had attempted to infiltrate a CIA-funded group that he had been arrested, and then they learned that he had attempted to travel to Cuba, a violation of US law at the time, and he had made contact with a KGB officer in Mexico City.

Mrs. Luna (56:35):

Okay, Mr. Morley. Did the CIA or FBI have intelligence prior to the assassination of President Kennedy that Lee Harvey Oswald intended to kill him?

Jefferson Morley (56:42):

No.

Mrs. Luna (56:44):

The FBI did not either?

Jefferson Morley (56:45):

No.

Mrs. Luna (56:46):

No one did? And then how do we… Mr. Davisson, how do we make sure the government is more transparent with Congress? You have 20 seconds. Good luck.

John Davisson (57:00):

I think in general the most important thing is to provide the resources to agencies to process public records requests or requests from Congress so that this information can actually be reviewed and disclosed in a timely fashion. Whether you are concerned about the truth of the statements that you raised at the top of your presentation or if perhaps you want to understand more about the Trump administration's hateful campaign against trans individuals, either way, you would require more resources for public records disclosure and requests.

Mrs. Luna (57:38):

Okay, and just for clarification, Mr. Morley, this is about as nonpartisan as this committee gets, so good job. Thank you. I'll now recognize Congressman Christian Morphy for five minutes.

Mr Garcia (57:48):

Thank you, Madam Chair. President Kennedy's grandson, Jack Schlossberg said conspiracies surrounding JFK's death have shifted focus away from the important lessons of his life and the critical issues of the moment, so I'd like to focus a little bit on some of those lessons and issues. Mr. DiEugenio, it's the start of baseball season. Go Cubs. Let's begin with JFK's 1960 letter to Jackie Robinson in which JFK highlighted Robinson's role in the civil rights struggle. JFK said quote, "I believe I understand and appreciate your role in continuing the struggle to fulfill America's promise of equal opportunity for all." Just last month, President Trump bizarrely ordered DOD to purge its website of all references to Black history, Black veterans, and even the reference to Jackie Robinson's own military service. In response, Mr. DiEugenio, you posted that what Trump did was quote, "Really sick." That's what you said and that's what you believe, right sir? Yes?

James DiEugenio (59:01):

Did I say that?

Mr Garcia (59:02):

Yeah, you did.

James DiEugenio (59:07):

I'm sorry. I don't recall saying that. Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't. I wish you would have given it to me before so I could have looked at it.

Mr Garcia (59:16):

Mr. Morley, you said that JFK quote, "Took great risks on behalf of all Americans in resisting the forces of militarism and racism."

Jefferson Morley (59:28):

Yes.

Mr Garcia (59:29):

Donald Trump on the other hand, recently eliminated, believe it or not, the prohibition on federal contractors using or maintaining racially segregated facilities. JFK would've rejected what Trump recently did, correct?

Jefferson Morley (59:49):

I was invited here to talk about the JFK files and I don't want to make a partisan political issue of it. Like I said, I'm a liberal Democrat and if in general I had to choose between a conservative Republican like Donald Trump and a liberal Democrat like JFK, I would choose JFK.

Mr Garcia (01:00:06):

Well, let me talk about USAID for a second because that was something that JFK actually established. Sir, recently USAID is now being shuttered. Again that is something that is a very important part of his legacy and that's something that he would've opposed obviously, correct?

Jefferson Morley (01:00:27):

I think President Kennedy would've said that no government agency is sacrosanct, and I'm sure he would've said that any federal agency that should be abolished should be done in consultation between the President and Congress.

Mr Garcia (01:00:38):

And that hasn't been done here? Yes, sir?

Jefferson Morley (01:00:42):

Not that I know of.

Mr Garcia (01:00:43):

Let me turn to another topic, Mr. Stone, some of your films such as Platoon and Born on the 4th of July were inspired by your own military experiences in the Army when you deployed to Vietnam in the sixties, right?

Oliver Stone (01:01:00):

That's correct.

Mr Garcia (01:01:01):

We have this picture here of you in Vietnam.

Oliver Stone (01:01:05):

Thank you.

Mr Garcia (01:01:06):

I thank you deeply for your service. We actually found a picture of you in Vietnam and you were awarded the Bronze Star for valor, correct?

Oliver Stone (01:01:15):

That's correct.

Mr Garcia (01:01:16):

You've written that your Bronze Star was because of your actions during a quote, "Mean little ambush, which had cost you a lieutenant, a sergeant, and even your scout dog." Correct?

Oliver Stone (01:01:30):

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. What was he saying?

Jefferson Morley (01:01:32):

He said, did it cost you a lieutenant and your scout dog the ambush?

Oliver Stone (01:01:39):

No, that's another incident, sir. That was later on in another infantry unit. That wasn't the reason that led to my Bronze Star. Bronze Star came in August of that year, this wound occurred in October of '67.

Mr Garcia (01:01:56):

Can I you about that? It's ambushes like this where sometimes people are waiting opportunistically to fire upon you, but sometimes they have some type of information that allows them to lie and wait for a surprise attack, and part of that information could be your whereabouts or the timing of your arrival, correct?

Oliver Stone (01:02:17):

You're talking about friendly fire or fragging? Is this what you're-

Mr Garcia (01:02:22):

Ambushed from the enemy.

Oliver Stone (01:02:25):

To be ambushed by your own man, your own troops? Is that what you're saying?

Mr Garcia (01:02:30):

Ambushed by the enemy, the adversary.

Oliver Stone (01:02:32):

The adversary. I'm a little confused, but I just want to make the point that yes, there was a tremendous amount of friendly fire casualties in Vietnam and there's in any war, I believe. In my experience, 10% doesn't even describe it. I think it's closer to 15 or 20% in terms of friendly fire, deaths and wounds.

Mrs. Luna (01:02:55):

Mr. Stone, we'd like to thank you for your service to this country.

Oliver Stone (01:02:58):

Thank you.

Mrs. Luna (01:02:59):

You are a war hero. You have a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart and I think this committee reflects that.

Oliver Stone (01:03:03):

Thank you.

Mrs. Luna (01:03:03):

Thank you. The chair would like to now recognize Mr. Burchett.

Mr. Burchett (01:03:07):

Thank you, Chairlady. For over 50 years the assassination and President Kennedy has been shrouded in secrecy and corruption. The American people have been lied to repeatedly by this federal government. President Trump's executive orders declassified the critical documents I think is a step in the right direction, but Congress must ensure that the bureaucrats in Washington DC don't get away with what they've done and they don't get in the way of transparency. Mr. Stone, I know you've talked about chain of custody and I'd like to hear your thoughts on some of the NBC videos.

(01:03:40)
And I know that since you've already talked about your service to our great country from '67 to '68, you're twice wounded in action. You received a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, an air medal in the combat inventory badge, and we salute you for your service, sir. Today is the 80th anniversary of the invasion of Okinawa. And that's an island my dad was on and he told me, he said the Purple Heart was one medal he was glad he never got. Mr. Stone, I'm going to ask for the indulgence of the Chairlady and the members if I could just yield my time to you and you to discuss anything you would like to pertaining to this subject and to ask any of the other men up here on the dais with you, any questions you would like.

Oliver Stone (01:04:22):

Well, I'd like to point out that in our film JFK Revisited in 2021, which is an important… I hope members of the committee have a chance to look at it because it is a follow-up to the original film and it's a documentary made with Mr. DiEugenio as a writer in which we take the evidence from the ARB and we examine as much of as we can. Included in that is the concept of chain of custody. We interviewed Henry Lee who is one of the country's leading… What would you call it?

James DiEugenio (01:04:59):

He's the leading criminalist in America.

Oliver Stone (01:05:01):

A criminalist, whatever that… He was saying to us repeatedly, and he's on camera, a chain of custody has to go from the scene of the crime to the courtroom. Otherwise, you cannot bring the charge on Oswald or anybody. Well, that doesn't exist in this case. We went through this in the documentary. The rifle itself is not the one that is described in the film. It was shown of a detective walking out with a rifle in his arms raised, that rifle does not resemble the one that was bought by Oswald. The Chicago supposedly bought by Oswald, Hiddel was his name.

Mr. Burchett (01:05:42):

The one held up was a Mauser and the one he allegedly shot him with was a Mannlicher Italian Carcano, I believe.

James DiEugenio (01:05:47):

The difference is that the one in evidence is longer. It's about four inches longer. It has a sling to it and it has a screw in the butt of the rifle, which I consulted with some rifle experts and they said Oswald could not have done that by himself. All right, so those are the differences between the one that the Warren Commission says Oswald actually purchased versus the one that they put into evidence.

Oliver Stone (01:06:15):

No rifle and no bullets, I said. Now, the bullets is even more ridiculous. As you know, there's been a long amount of controversy about the CE 399, the so-called magic bullet, which came out apparently undamaged after wounding seven or eight wounds. We don't have a chain of custody proving that those bullets were ever used, so those are not… That they do not match the ones at the sixth floor that we see pictured.

Mr. Burchett (01:06:47):

And that's the bullet that was found on the gurney, correct, beside one of the bodies?

James DiEugenio (01:06:51):

Yes, except we don't know which gurney it was found on. And then if you go to the chain of custody from, well, let me use this as an example, according to the evidence, all right, that bullet was turned over to the FBI at 9:20 that night. Well, here's the problem. Frazier, who was the FBI ballistics expert, had the bullet at 7:35. How on earth can you have a bullet that hasn't been delivered into the White House because that's where the exchange took place? That's one of the big problems and I could go on for two hours on what's wrong with CE 399 as a piece of evidence. I don't think any attorney in the United States would even try and submit CE 399, because it would blow up in your face.

(01:07:51)
Concerning the medical that he mentioned. In the House Select Committee volumes, volume seven, page 37 you'll see a quote saying that the witnesses at Bethesda did not see this blown out back of the skull, which the witnesses at Parkland Hospital saw, which is strongly indicative of a shot from the front. All right. Well, this is what happened. When the ARB declassified all the medical files from the House Select Committee on Assassinations that turned out to be a lie because as many people at Bethesda saw this blown out back of the skull as saw it at Parkland, there's I think 21 and 21, so you have a grand total of 42 people. Can 42 people all be wrong? That just defies imagination.

Mr. Burchett (01:08:47):

435 people are often wrong, but that's Congress.

Mrs. Luna (01:08:53):

Thank you Mr. Burchett. Ms. Lee, you're now recognized for five minutes.

Ms. Lee (01:08:57):

Thank you Madam Chair and our ranking member Garcia for convening today's hearing and thank you so much for the witnesses for being here. I don't want this task force to get drawn too far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole when we convene these hearings because the reality of the CIA's past action is troubling on its own. This dump of documents alone showed evidence of illegal surveillance, break-ins, overstepping of authority. We've even got specific instructions on how to wiretap, including how to use certain chemicals to create markings on phones to tip off spies, but we already knew this was happening. We knew that the CIA committed human rights abuses and illegally surveilled people, which is why the work declassifying these documents is so important. We've got to have transparency so that we can learn to do better, so that we can hold agencies accountable, but being reckless with the sensitive information is also not the way to do it.

(01:09:57)
Declassifying documents around the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. is a serious matter and we owe it to the American people to get it right. Unfortunately, the rollout of documents we've seen so far has been sloppy and rushed. The release didn't really give us a smoking gun, but it did produce a plenty of collateral damage. Trump's actions have jeopardized the safety and security of hundreds of formal congressional and federal employees by releasing their social security numbers and personal information to the public and for what? To score political points by rushing the release. Many of the people whose personal information has been exposed are rightfully afraid about their identities being stolen and about threats to their personal safety. And people identified in the documents are already being forced to get new social security numbers at a time when President Trump is literally dismantling the agency that administers them. Mr. Davisson, President ordered the declassification and release of tens of thousands of pages within 24 hours. Do you think that that was problematic and if so, why?

John Davisson (01:11:00):

Thank you for the question. It was. Going back to January, of course, was the executive order requiring the disclosure of all the records in the collection? My understanding is that the process was playing out, that the archives was conducting the review. It needed to determine what few bits of these records needed to be redacted to protect among other things, the privacy of individuals whose information was contained therein.

(01:11:26)
And then that process was short-circuited and despite awareness at the National Security Council in the archives that the disclosure of these records would cause tangible privacy harm, the rollout was conducted without redactions, all the same, leading to the situation where hundreds of social security numbers had been disclosed, creating a quite scary and alarming situation for those whose numbers were implicated, who now have to rush to place freezes on their credit accounts. If they're issued new social security numbers, to update all of that information with all of their various accounts and creditors and so forth, so it is a serious issue for the people affected and it could have been avoided with just a little bit more due diligence of the sort that the archives normally exercises.

Ms. Lee (01:12:16):

Is there a way that Trump could have protected that personal information?

John Davisson (01:12:20):

Is there a way that the President could have protected that information? Yeah, by going through the ordinary process of reviewing these documents and dictating that these particular social security numbers and other sensitive financial pieces of information would not be disclosed with the records?

Ms. Lee (01:12:37):

Certainly. Thank you. Mr. Morley, as someone who's read through all of the documents, do you think that the documents could have been better organized so it was more accessible to more people?

Jefferson Morley (01:12:49):

I want to say that… I want to say that the release of the social security numbers and other personal information was unprofessional, reckless, careless. I'm the vice president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, which sponsors the largest online archive of JFK, RFK, and MLK records. And I was authorized by the President to release this statement about the social security numbers. While the MFF is an advocate of full transparency and the JFK Records Act make no exception for such information, we are electing to redact all the social security numbers in these records. Unlike even seemingly mundane document details which sometimes do add to the history of the case, social security numbers add nothing of value and expose their holders to possible identity theft. Accordingly, when we put these particular documents online in the coming weeks, we will be adding our own redactions to them. We will not be redacting other information, most other data as long-

Ms. Lee (01:13:46):

Certainly, Mr. Morley. Thank you so much for adding that. I just want to be clear. An open and transparent federal government is essential for public trust and declassification is a good thing. There is a way to do this. It's important that we are not sloppy, that we are not rushing things, that we are not doing things in just a haphazard way as we've seen with so many things that DOGE and the administration has touched. What we want, is for this information to be out. We want people to understand the past, our agencies, the CIA. We need to do it right. With that, I yield back.

Mrs. Luna (01:14:20):

Thank you very much. Without further ado, I'd like to recognize Ms. Boebert for five minutes.

Ms. Boebert (01:14:27):

Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Hopefully we can stay on topic for the rest of this hearing. We seem to be wrapping up pretty close here. Mr. Stone, you wrote a book accusing LBJ of being involved in the killing of President Kennedy. Did these most recent releases confirm or negate your initial charge being involved in the assassination of President Kennedy?

Oliver Stone (01:15:03):

No. No, I didn't. In the film, if you look closely, there's no such statements. No, I didn't. If you look closely at the film, there's no… It accuses President Johnson of being part of a complicit and a cover-up of the case, but not in the assassination itself, which I don't know.

Ms. Boebert (01:15:23):

What do you think that he was complicit with? Yes sir, I'll get to you.

Oliver Stone (01:15:25):

The cover-up, well, how about for starters pointing Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA, who was fired by Kennedy to the commission itself, to the Warren Commission. And he goes to almost every meeting and he's pretty much in charge of the Warren Commission from the beginning, Alan Dulles. That's part of the evidence that points to President Johnson's either incompetence or involvement.

Ms. Boebert (01:15:49):

Mr. Morley, I think you had something to add on that.

Jefferson Morley (01:15:52):

I think you're confusing. Mr. Oliver Stone with Mr. Roger Stone.

Ms. Boebert (01:15:56):

I may have mis-stated it. Sorry.

Jefferson Morley (01:15:58):

It's Roger Stone who implicated LBJ in the assassinations of the President. It's not my friend Oliver Stone.

Ms. Boebert (01:16:03):

Is that all the whispers were there? I may have misinterpreted that and I apologize for that, but there seems to be some alluding of, like you said, incompetence or some sort of involvement there on the back end. And so not… Sorry, I'm going to move on. Mr. Morley, I would like to talk more about the CE 399 and this file. I want the American people to know what's in there that what was recently released, how that lines up to this and how we could get more clarity there.

Jefferson Morley (01:16:38):

I'm not familiar with the number that you mentioned.

Ms. Boebert (01:16:43):

Mr. Di-

James DiEugenio (01:16:43):

Are you talking about commission exhibit 399?

Jefferson Morley (01:16:45):

Yeah.

James DiEugenio (01:16:46):

Okay.

Jefferson Morley (01:16:49):

I yield my time to Jim.

Ms. Boebert (01:16:51):

I have more questions for you too, Mr. Morley.

James DiEugenio (01:16:53):

Commission exhibit 399 has a very wild trajectory, which I think any person familiar with ballistics would question in the first place. Then the second place is it has a very, very dubious chain of custody from, it was first captured at the Parkland Hospital. Tomlinson and Wright, who worked there turned it over to the Secret Service. Then the Secret Service turned over at the FBI. Any investigator would want to interview Mr. Wright because he was the security guy who turned over the bullet to the Secret Service. Well, Wright was not interviewed and there's a good reason he wasn't interviewed. When Josiah Thompson was writing his book, Six Seconds in Dallas, he interviewed O.P. Wright, who was the director of security at Parkland Hospital.

(01:17:55)
And he said, "Yeah, I'm the guy who gave the…" And Thompson put up a picture of CE 399 in front of him and Wright said, "They say that's the bullet that I turned over to the Secret Service?" And he said, "Yes." He says, "No, I did not turn over that bullet." And he opened up the drawer because he was in charge of the whole security thing and he pulled out a bullet and says, this is the kind of bullet, that it wasn't a hunting round. By the way he was so stupefied that after the interview he chased Thompson down the hallway and he said, "Are you sure that's the bullet that they said I turned over?" And he said, "Yes." And he just shook his head. He couldn't believe it.

Ms. Boebert (01:18:46):

Thank you. I would love to go into that deeper, but Mr. Morley, before my time is up, why do you believe that the CIA was surveilling Lee Harvey Oswald in the years before JFK's assassination? And what methods did the CIA a use in this surveillance?

Jefferson Morley (01:19:02):

One of the documents that was released last month revealed that when Angleton put people on the list for intercepting their mail, his purpose was to approach them to be a contact or a source. I believe that Angleton, when he put Oswald under mail surveillance, was considering using him as a contact, as a source. The means of surveillance that were used were first mail surveillance, and then Oswald came under photographic surveillance, wiretap surveillance and contact with CIA funded groups.

Ms. Boebert (01:19:38):

Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield.

Mrs. Luna (01:19:43):

I now recognize Ms. Crockett for five minutes.

Ms. Crockett (01:19:53):

Thank you so much. There often isn't too much agreement when it comes specifically to Congress, let alone to this particular committee. And I will tell you that y'all have given me all the feels as someone who had an opportunity to practice law, so when you start talking about things such as chain of custody, these are the things that I used to challenge all the time as a defense attorney. And the reason that I had to make sure that I was here and specifically on today is because on November 22nd, 1963, Texas 30th Congressional District, the district that I represent became the site of one of the most tragic events in American political history. After being struck by the bullets of an assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy was rushed to Parkland Hospital where hardworking physicians from the UT Southwestern Medical Center worked tirelessly to resuscitate him.

(01:20:54)
During the 48 hours between the moment President Kennedy was shot to the moment when Oswald was pronounced dead, Texas 30th Congressional District became the temporary seat of the US Government, the temporary seat of the Texas government, the site of the 35th President's death and the center of the world's attention. While I value government accountability and transparency, like most of my colleagues, nearly all the previously classified JFK assassination files are now public and show no evidence of a CIA conspiracy. But what I find funny about this hearing is that the Republicans are here re-litigating whether CIA agents lied 60 years ago but aren't doing anything about the CIA director lying to Congress just six days ago. We should be having a hearing on the fact that the unqualified Secretary of Defense and other senior Trump officials were carelessly discussing classified military plans over an unsecured Signal group chat. And instead of providing oversight over the administration's handling of classified information, the Republicans have spent a week trying to convince the American people that the military plans were not classified.

(01:22:07)
Instead of giving a platform to conspiracy theories, and let me be clear, there are holes. I don't want y'all to think that I don't think that there are holes, but when we're looking back, we need to look back so that we can look forward and hopefully do better, so that is why I am bringing us to present day. It might be helpful if we walk everyone through the classification and declassification process since the Republicans have decided to do it this way. Federal law defines classified information as quote, "information or material requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security." Federal law also defines disclosure as quote, "communicating, providing, transmitting, transferring, conveying, publishing or otherwise making available." Congress has long enacted classified information laws that forbid the disclosure of classified information separately. Executive order 13526 puts in place a uniform system for classifying and declassifying national security information.

(01:23:10)
According to the executive order, classified information includes the following quote, "military plans, weapons systems or operations, intelligence activities including covert actions, intelligence sources or methods and foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources." Under the quote, " general responsibilities provision of the executive order," quote, "heads of agency shall ensure the agency records system are designed and maintained to optimize the appropriate sharing and safeguarding of classified information and help facilitate its declassification." Not to mention that it's also illegal under federal law to destroy classified documents and information, so this administration is breaking law by discussing classified information over unsecured channels and breaking the law by destroying the evidence of the conversations.

Ms. Crockett (01:24:00):

We wouldn't be able to have today's hearing if the CIA destroyed the records associated with the assassination of President Kennedy. So Mr. Morley, wouldn't it be impossible for you to accurately report on the JFK assassination if the CIA and FBI deleted all documents like the Trump administration officials plan to do in the Signal group chat?

Jefferson Morley (01:24:24):

The CIA destroyed a lot of records related to President Kennedy's assassination. Again, I didn't come here to engage in a debate about partisan politics. I think everybody agrees about the JFK files and I want to endorse Mr. Davisson's call for full funding of public records offices in the government.

Ms. Crockett (01:24:42):

I understand. And Mr. Stone, wouldn't it be nearly impossible to produce a film if there was not a legitimate record of these events taking place?

Oliver Stone (01:24:56):

Well, that's a very good question. Not really.

Speaker 1 (01:25:00):

Your button.

Oliver Stone (01:25:01):

Oh, I'm sorry. That's a very good question. Not really. I mean, the events unfolded as they did, and right away from day one, people were pointing out inconsistencies way before there was an official record of this.

Ms. Crockett (01:25:15):

Thank you. With that, I will yield.

Mr. Burlison (01:25:21):

Mr. Morley, Mr. Stone, Mr. Eugenio, I just want to say thank you for being here, taking time out of your day, and I want to apologize that not everyone on this hearing seems to want to use this time to its fullest extent. And so I want to start by saying thank you Mr. Stone. Shortly after your film's release, the United States Congress passed the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, and you did something that I don't know that I've done in my career. It passed unanimously. I want to give you an opportunity to talk about how it felt and the impact of having a movie that not only has spurred multiple hearings of Congress but unanimously passed a bill through Congress.

Oliver Stone (01:26:14):

Sir, at the time I was told that by many people who were involved and they were very happy and thought that this was a great public duty. I didn't feel that way. I felt like I was being skewered the whole time in the media, and many people volunteered, important people volunteered negative impressions that were not based, I don't think on reality that people didn't bother to see the film, for example, and were saying that, "He's got Lyndon Johnson and all that involved," and blah, blah, blah, and, "He's got 55 people, different agencies involved." I mean, this is nonsense.

Mr. Burlison (01:26:55):

I just want to say on behalf of the American people, thank you for what you did because-

Oliver Stone (01:26:59):

Thank you.

Mr. Burlison (01:26:59):

… because of your work-

Oliver Stone (01:27:00):

That's wonderful.

Mr. Burlison (01:27:00):

… we now have documents like this one. Madam Chair, I'd like to re-enter into the record a CIA document that ends in number 10056.

Mrs Luna (01:27:11):

Without objection. So ordered.

Mr. Burlison (01:27:13):

In this document, it dispels the narrative that when Oswald visited Mexico City, that he only met with Sylvia Duran. In fact, in this document, he met with a KGB official. Remarkably, the individual by the name of Kostakov was actually a member of KGB and Department 13. Because of your work, we now have this kind of evidence. He actually met with a member of the KGB who was part of the wetworks, the assassination team. I also want to say thank you, because of your work we have another document that I want to enter into the record. This ends in 10191.

Mrs Luna (01:28:06):

Without objection. So ordered.

Mr. Burlison (01:28:07):

In this document, we have a testimony that an individual named Francisco Tamayo, otherwise known as El Mexicano, accompanied Lee Harvey Oswald into Mexico City for his meetings in both the Cuban Embassy and the Russian Embassy. Mr. Stone, I'm shocked that this narrative is only really been something that we've seen only in the last few years. You would think that the Warren Report would've reported the fact that Oswald had met with a KGB individual in Department 13, basically the assassination division, and that he was accompanied by an individual known as El Mexicano, that later an FBI report indicated that this individual, El Mexicano, was captured in Venezuela for attempting to assassinate another individual. Mr. Morley, I want to ask you about Mr. Angleton. Who is Mr. Angleton?

Jefferson Morley (01:29:16):

James Angleton was the chief of CIA counterintelligence from 1954 to 1974. In that period, he was one of the most influential men in the CIA serving under one, two, three, four different directors.

Mr. Burlison (01:29:32):

And what did he tell the Warren Commission in 1963 and '64?

Jefferson Morley (01:29:37):

When the Warren Commission came asking Angleton for information about Oswald's visit to Mexico City, Angleton wrote a memo or told his aides that he wanted to, and this is a quote, "wait out the commission." He did not cooperate. And like Richard Helms, they both basically fooled the Warren Commission and deceived them about what they knew about Oswald.

Mr. Burlison (01:30:01):

Later, we now have, because of the work of Mr. Stone and others, we have Mr. Angleton's testimony that he gave to the assassination committee, the House Select Committee on Assassinations. What insights did we gain from that?

Jefferson Morley (01:30:19):

This document was not fully declassified until March 18th. And in there we learned for the first time that Angleton had lied to the House Select Committee when he testified in October 1978 in an office building about two blocks from here. And that was never known before until March 18th that he had done that. And that is one of the most significant revelations to come out of this. People will say, "Oh, well, there's nothing new here." No, there's something new here. The New York Times, the Washington Post have never reported that one of the three top CIA officials lied to the JFK investigators.

Mr. Burlison (01:30:56):

Yeah, and the fact that we have three CIA officials that lied to Congress for decades and that it took decades to get documents that should have been released, that had very compelling information, and it took 60 years to get that information released is appalling. And that's why I want to say thank you to all of your work in helping to get this information released.

Oliver Stone (01:31:20):

Thank you.

Mrs Luna (01:31:22):

I'd like to now recognize Mr. Crane for five minutes. Oh, sorry. You need us consent. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Burlison (01:31:30):

Yeah. So I have some more documents I want enter into the record. Here's from the National Archives, a NARA letter dated 2017 that the CIA withheld docs regardless of the JFK Act.

Mrs Luna (01:31:42):

With that objection, so ordered.

Mr. Burlison (01:31:44):

Another document from the archives that the Warren Commission did not have original classification authority

Mrs Luna (01:31:50):

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Burlison (01:31:51):

And then another document from the archives that the FBI's reasoning for redactions dated 2017 in the NARA letter.

Mrs Luna (01:31:58):

Without objection, so ordered. I'd like to now recognize Mr. Crane for five minutes.

Mr. Crane (01:32:03):

Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman. Thank you guys for coming out today. You guys have probably forgot more about the JFK assassination than I'll ever know. So I'm still going to ask you some questions and I appreciate just how dogged you guys have been on this for decades. Mr. Morley, I want to start with you. What is the most interesting information you found in this newest release of documents on the assassination of President Kennedy?

Jefferson Morley (01:32:29):

The nine memos about James Angleton that were fully declassified on March 18th is the most important collection that I've seen so far. There is a lot of information that has come out. Jim mentioned the Arthur Schlesinger memo. That really sets the stage for the alienation between the Kennedy White House and the CIA that lasted for the rest of Kennedy's presidency. So I would say that the Angleton memos and the Schlesinger memo are the most important I've seen so far.

Mr. Crane (01:32:57):

Thank you. Mr. Morley, do you believe that Oswald was recruited and being handled as a source for the CIA?

Jefferson Morley (01:33:04):

I believe Oswald was an agent of influence who was manipulated by the CIA.

Mr. Crane (01:33:08):

Okay. And as I was going through some research, one of the things that I found interesting, and please correct me if I'm mistaken here, any of you guys on the panel, but Mr. Underhill, who was a CIA agent himself, who apparently left DC the days after the assassination in a hurry, Gary Underhill then confided in a friend that a clique within the CIA had assassinated Kennedy. He also told his friends that he may need to leave the country and that he feared for his life. Mr. Underhill was then found dead six months later. I'm going to start with you, Mr. Morley. Do you find those types of stories surrounding Mr. Underhill to be credible?

Jefferson Morley (01:33:48):

Mr. Underhill was hardly alone in suspecting CIA involvement of the assassination. President Harry Truman suspected it. President Johnson suspected it and President Richard Nixon suspected it. So I think that Gary Underhill was a man who worked in the intelligence community and was in a position to know something. His story's not confirmed, but it's consistent with what lots of other people thought.

Mr. Crane (01:34:11):

What was his title? Do you remember, Mr. Morley?

Jefferson Morley (01:34:13):

He was not a CIA employee. He was an arms dealer who assisted CIA in acquiring weapons and shipping them.

Mr. Crane (01:34:21):

Do you know how he died, Mr. Morley?

Jefferson Morley (01:34:23):

I don't know anything more than was reported in the documents.

Mr. Crane (01:34:27):

Mr. Eugenio, do you know how he died?

James DiEugenio (01:34:31):

DiEugenio.

Mr. Crane (01:34:31):

Sorry about that.

James DiEugenio (01:34:33):

You're not the first one. Yeah.

Mr. Crane (01:34:36):

Do you know how he died, sir? Mr. Underhill.

Oliver Stone (01:34:44):

Gary Underhill. Do you know how he died?

James DiEugenio (01:34:47):

Gary Underhill?

Mr. Crane (01:34:47):

Yeah.

James DiEugenio (01:34:54):

Gary Underhill, his body was discovered by his friend Asher Burns, who was a magazine writer at the time, and the door was open, ajar a little, and Burns entered the room and he thought Underhill was sleeping. But as he approached the body, he saw that there was a hole, a bullet hole in his head. Asher Burns was so disgusted by the investigation that came after that he didn't even want to talk about what had happened. But one of the things about the Underhill death is that for him to have taken in his own life, the gun was in the wrong hand. So that was one of the most puzzling things about that particular case. Underhill has been, I believe, very much ignored by a lot of people, and I'm glad that this memo got out there.

Mr. Crane (01:35:55):

Thank you, sir. Mr. Morley, are you familiar with Michael Franchisi who was a capo for the Colombo family?

Jefferson Morley (01:36:03):

I've appeared with him twice on the Piers Morgan show. That's all I know.

Mr. Crane (01:36:06):

Okay, thank you. He claims that the mob was involved in this hit since the deal between the Kennedys and the mob was broken after the election. Do you find that to be credible?

Jefferson Morley (01:36:19):

I think Mr. Franchisi's contention that the organized crime rule in President Kennedy's assassination is very clear. And he said that it was common knowledge among the crime bosses who he has dealt with, that their role in the assassination was to eliminate the chief witness, Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Franchisi said that both times when I was on Piers Morgan with him, and I believe him.

Mr. Crane (01:36:45):

Thank you. This question is more based on the future, or I should say the present day. After two assassination attempts of President Trump within the last year and the little that we now know about Thomas Crooks and Ryan Ruth, do any of you guys on the panel believe that we are seeing history repeat itself?

Jefferson Morley (01:37:07):

No.

Mr. Crane (01:37:10):

Mr. Stone?

Oliver Stone (01:37:14):

I expressed my own surprise that so little do we still know about Mr. Crooks and the other assassination attempt. So I would see similarities here.

Mr. Crane (01:37:31):

Thank you. I'm out of time. I yield back.

Mrs Luna (01:37:35):

Thank you very much. I'd like to now recognize Mr. Gill for five minutes.

Mr. Gill (01:37:40):

Thank you, Chairwoman Luna. According to Pew Research, trust in the federal government has plummeted from 74% in 1958 to 22% in 2025. That's a trajectory that is utterly unsustainable and in the long-term incompatible with democratic self-governance. Unfortunately, a lot of that decline in trust is justified. The JFK assassination attempt, excuse me, the JFK assassination happened over 60 years ago and we still don't have all of the facts about what happened that day. Mr. Morley, thank you for being here and thank you for all of your work that you've done on this. Do you believe that the CIA is in compliance with President Trump's executive order to declassify and release the JFK files?

Jefferson Morley (01:38:31):

No. There are important records that have not been provided, like the personnel file of George Joannides. I should also note that as we go through these records, there are still redactions in some of these records and not a huge amount, but we have not had full compliance either in producing all the records or in completely releasing all the records that were redacted.

Mr. Gill (01:38:54):

And for the record, how many of the JFK files has the CIA released since the executive order was issued?

Jefferson Morley (01:39:03):

The figure of 80,000 pages is accurate as far as we can tell. And that's information from several thousand documents.

Mr. Gill (01:39:14):

Are those from the CIA specifically?

Jefferson Morley (01:39:17):

Most of the records that were released last month, about 80% of them were from the CIA.

Mr. Gill (01:39:22):

Okay. And how many documents do you believe the CIA still has that either haven't been released or overly redacted?

Jefferson Morley (01:39:32):

Since we haven't seen them, it's hard to put a number on it, but I would put the number in the hundreds. Hundreds of documents.

Mr. Gill (01:39:38):

Hundreds. Okay. And you are one of the foremost researchers on this topic. In your opinion, since the Warren Commission, has the federal government been forthcoming with information related to the JFK assassination?

Jefferson Morley (01:39:53):

No. All of this information could have been released a long time ago. By law, all of it should have been released eight years ago. So the attitude of obstruction and obfuscation from the CIA started on November 22nd, 1963 when CIA officers started lying about what the CIA knew. And that attitude unfortunately, has continued to the present day.

Mr. Gill (01:40:17):

And we've had several congressional investigations related to these files. During those inquiries, in your estimation, do you believe that any FBI, CIA, or other government officials have lied under oath or deliberately misled investigators?

Jefferson Morley (01:40:33):

In my remarks, I identified three of them who definitely lied. It's beyond reasonable doubt. Counterintelligence Chief Angleton, Director Helms and Branch Chief George Joannides.

Mr. Gill (01:40:46):

And given the amount of uncertainty that we have related to these files, do you believe that there's information that we'll never know about because, for instance, maybe the information has already been permanently deleted or the figures involved have died?

Jefferson Morley (01:41:02):

I'm actually optimistic that we can get to the bottom of this matter. We have a new attitude on the part of the government. We have President Trump's executive order, which strengthens the existing mandates of the JFK Records Act. So I think if the task force and the public and the Congress apply pressure and demand this material, we can get it and we can reach a decisive clarification about the causes of President Kennedy's assassination.

Mr. Gill (01:41:29):

Thank you. And I'd like to yield the balance of my time to the Chairwoman.

Mrs Luna (01:41:34):

Thank you very much. Mr. Gill. Mr. Stone, I'd like to ask you specifically. In talking with you earlier, you mentioned three women that were witnesses that had their testimonies omitted by the Warren Commission in regards to seeing Oswald in the book depository. Can you speak to that a little bit, please?

Oliver Stone (01:41:54):

Yes. It's a very interesting piece of information that we put into our documentary, JFK Revisited. It came out of the ARB. Or it came out from-

James DiEugenio (01:42:09):

I'm not sure if it did.

Oliver Stone (01:42:11):

Anyway.

Jefferson Morley (01:42:11):

It came out in recent years.

Oliver Stone (01:42:13):

It came out in recent years, around that time. Barry Ernest wrote about it and was interviewed in our film in which he says that in addition to there were three women on the fourth floor during the time of the assassination. They witnessed it from above and immediately they were headed down to see what was going on at a closer angle. Two of the women went downstairs quickly. The third woman, Dorothy Garner, who was a supervisor, an older woman, watched them go down the stairs. They were down. All this happened within 30 seconds. Oswald was on… If he was on the sixth floor, which I sincerely doubt, had to be a track star to store the weapon, to run across the floor and go down those same stairs and appear as he did to Marion Baker in the second floor lunchroom. All of this was highly unlikely. And I think that should be addressed. Two of the women are still alive?

James DiEugenio (01:43:17):

See, no, Victoria Adams passed away. I think Sandy Stiles is still alive. It's called the Stroud Document and it has Garner's testimony in it. This was discovered by writer Barry Ernest in 1999 as a result of the ARB. And it turned out that the Texas Attorney General, Stroud had talked to Garner, the supervisor, and sent this information to the Warren Commission in the Summer of 1964. But you won't find it in any of the Warren Commission volumes, even though it's a kind of important piece of evidence because Garner said that she never saw Oswald on the stairs and the two girls went down before the policeman and the supervisor Roy Truly came up. So it's very hard to believe that Oswald was tearing down those stairs and this woman never saw him.

Mrs Luna (01:44:22):

Thank you very much. Mr. Oswald. Sorry. Mr. Oswald. Mr. Stone. Sorry. Lots of Oswald today. Mr. Stone, one of my last questions for you before we wrap up this hearing. Would you recommend that the task force send a letter requesting NBC make a copy, a clear copy of the-

Oliver Stone (01:44:42):

Certainly, that'd be very interesting. Mr. DiEugenio and I saw film of a potential Oswald watching the motorcade go by, which means that he was downstairs at the time of the shooting. And that would be very interesting to see. We couldn't say for sure that that was Oswald, but it's a man who looks like him. So I think it would be a very good idea for the task force to subpoena NBC, which has the original film.

James DiEugenio (01:45:15):

Yes, they supposedly have the original.

Oliver Stone (01:45:17):

They have the original film. They've refused it twice to be shown.

James DiEugenio (01:45:21):

Yes

Oliver Stone (01:45:21):

To. And if this task force could easily get that and American public should have a right to judge for itself, who was standing there?

Mrs Luna (01:45:31):

Well, first of all, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. There are those in our country who may ask why this task force seeks to pursue the truth underlying the facts surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. And the answer to that is the truth, even the truth delayed, and justice, even justice delayed, is always worth attaining. And the men and women who have sought answers regarding the assassination of American President John F. Kennedy for all the world to see have been obstructed and hampered by our own government for over 60 years. This hearing is not meant to provide a definitive explanation of the Kennedy assassination. This hearing demonstrates however, that the CIA and other components of the federal government have not been honest with the American people that they're meant to serve up until recent efforts. And the American people must hold these agencies accountable and they can.

(01:46:21)
I've invited Mr. Stone, a filmmaker, to this hearing because he did just that motivating Congress in the 1990s to pass a law that began the declassification process. And I'd like to applaud our president for continuing this process as he promised to do so. Researchers like Mr. Morley and Mr. DiEugenio have provided new information that helped bring light to some of the darkest days in American history. And I would like to thank the witnesses again and applaud their work. The search for truth continues and the task force will pursue this at any price. I'd also like to note that we are planning on sending a letter to NBC requesting what you've recommended, Mr. Stone. Before I wrap it up, I would just like to say, do you guys have any statements in closing for the American people?

Jefferson Morley (01:47:06):

I would just like to thank you, Chairwoman Luna, for your aggressive action-oriented approach to this issue. While we diverge politically, it's been a pleasure to work with you and your leadership is important on this. Like I said before, I think we are making progress.

Mrs Luna (01:47:23):

Thank you, Mr. Stone or Mr. DiEugenio?

Oliver Stone (01:47:25):

Thank you, Chairwoman. I really admire what you're doing and I wish you the best of success.

Mrs Luna (01:47:35):

Mr. DiEugenio?

James DiEugenio (01:47:40):

I think one of the things that the committee should do is talk to some of the people who were on the ARB so you can understand just how difficult it was for them and why they couldn't complete their job. I certainly, certainly hope that this committee does complete that job. And finally, 62 years later, we'll know everything the government did know. One thing that the gentleman down here asked about… See, very few people know there were three attempts on JFK's life in November.

(01:48:21)
There was one in Chicago, there was one in Tampa, and then there was the successful one in Dallas. The Chicago attempt so much resembles what happened in Dallas that if the Secret Service would've given all those records over, then the Dallas one might've been prevented. At the one in Tampa, that one there was just the opposite of Dallas. You had wall-to-wall Secret Service, FBI, et cetera. And Kennedy was so happy that he got away that he stayed after at the Floridian Hotel and insisted on shaking hands with every single officer that was involved in that attempt. So these are some of the records that are still out there.

Mrs Luna (01:49:15):

Thank you very much, Mr. DiEugenio. Mr. Davisson?

John Davisson (01:49:18):

I'll just thank you again for the opportunity to testify and to encourage the task force again to take all steps possible as this process moves forward, to ensure the protection of the privacy of individuals who are named in these records and to ensure that federal public records offices have the resources they need to provide valuable public information to the public in a timely fashion.

Mrs Luna (01:49:42):

Absolutely. I know that although I do not speak for this administration, that I know that everyone is well aware of the Social Securities and working to the best of their ability to ensure that those people are taken care of. So that is being looked into on our end. Without further ado, without objection, all members have five legislative days within this to submit materials and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forward to the witnesses for response. If there are no further business without objection, the task force stands adjourned. Thank you.