LIVE: Hearing On JFK Assassination Files

[Steve M. Galbraith]

My take on Morley's prepared statement to the Task Force:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2025/04/debunking-morleys-congressional.html

Tracy: You have the better half - hell 4/5ths of the argument here with Morley - but I think that Hardway claim that Joannides lied about knowing who ran AMSPELL (he did!) can't be defended. That whole episode stinks. I've seen nothing indicating that Joannides obstructed the investigation or interfered in any way but it still was indefensible.

Hardway has some pretty goofy views (he thinks Oswald was ordered to Mexico City by his handler David Phillips to connect the assassination with Castro/Moscow) but he sure seems to be a honest person.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Steve,

Me and the small email group I belong to do not see credible evidence that Joannides was asked (in writing) who was running the DRE in 1963. We only have Hardway's word that he did so. Now, Joannides certainly did not offer that information to the HSCA. But as I indicate in my article, it is not surprising that he would not offer information that he likely assumed was still classified and not something the committee "needed to know." Yes, that makes people suspicious and that is unfortunate. But in any case, Morley is exaggerating the situation by saying three CIA men lied "under oath" when Joannides was never under oath even if he did talk to Hardway about the DRE.

[Allan Fritzke]

Certainly there is more and more evidence no longer being able to be swept under the rug.  Conspiracy theory versus reality!   Actual evidence versus censored evidence.  When the FBI sat on Hunter Biden's laptop (for over a year) knowing full well its validity and can still make claims that it was Russian disinformation and have 51 people officials swear to it - you know the state of affairs and the corruption present.   Operation Mockingbird has been going on for a very long time and people are waking up to it!  If it happens now, it happened then!


3 years ago with Dieugenio:

Yesterday with Jefferson Morley:  *********************************************************************************

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370903283112

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Steve,

Me and the small email group I belong to do not see credible evidence that Joannides was asked (in writing) who was running the DRE in 1963. We only have Hardway's word that he did so. Now, Joannides certainly did not offer that information to the HSCA. But as I indicate in my article, it is not surprising that he would not offer information that he likely assumed was still classified and not something the committee "needed to know." Yes, that makes people suspicious and that is unfortunate. But in any case, Morley is exaggerating the situation by saying three CIA men lied "under oath" when Joannides was never under oath even if he did talk to Hardway about the DRE.

I agree that it does seem to be an odd question to ask Joannides out of the blue. He was, if I have his role correct, a liaison between the HSCA staff and the CIA helping coordinate document release. A sort of go between.

As to secrecy oaths/requirements: Didn't the CIA issue a release for agents testifying? A security clearance waiver? I know during the testimony of Phillips that the issue was raised and Phillips said he was told that the secrecy oath didn't apply to his testimony before the Committee.

Here at page 29: https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/david-atlee-phillips-hsca-112776.pdf

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Steve,

Phillips was released from the secrecy oath. I don't know if Joannides was but I doubt it since he did not testify. Here is a blog post I did with the help of Robert Reynolds that expresses more reasons to be skeptical of Morley and Hardway:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2025/04/morley-must-clarify-record-on-joannides.html

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Steve,

Phillips was released from the secrecy oath. I don't know if Joannides was but I doubt it since he did not testify. Here is a blog post I did with the help of Robert Reynolds that expresses more reasons to be skeptical of Morley and Hardway:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2025/04/morley-must-clarify-record-on-joannides.html

Thanks. So Hardway's claim appears to be that he simply asked Joannides about DRE? A sort of informal question; nothing under oath or on record. That seems to be a strange question for him to ask at that time. And of Joannides. And of the DRE.

It seems to me that the idea that the DRE was somehow involved in the assassination as part of a counter intelligence/FPCC operation wasn't something being promoted at that time. It's more of a Morley post HSCA claim. That famous Gaeton Fonzi piece for the Washingtonian magazine never mentions the DRE at all. Bringuier yes, but not the DRE. Sure, they looked into the possibility of any role but they, as far as I can see, found nothing.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Morley threatening to sue CBS for libel for falsely saying he's a conspiracy theorist is risible. That's a fancy word for "Get the heck out of here with that, buddy."

Here is Morley in his book "Morley vs. CIA":

#1:


And #2:


The second is weaker, admittedly than the first. But only about Joannide's role where he says Joannides "was most likely an accessory after the fact." "Most likely" qualifies things. That's his out about Joannides.

But what was the "fact"? That "fact" according to Morley is that JFK was murdered as part of a conspiracy. He's not a theorist; he's a believer. Okay, so a believer is not a theorist. I award Morley $1.