Mr.Rankin. Do you have any credible information that would cause you to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of any foreign country.
Mr.Rowley. I have no such credible information.
Mr.Rankin. Do you have any credible information to cause you to believe that he was involved in any conspiracy in connection with the assassination, either domestic or foreign?
Mr.Rowley. I have no credible information on any of those.
Mr.Rankin. Are there any areas of the investigation of the Commission that you would suggest that further work should be done, as far as you know the work of the Commission?
Mr.Rowley. I do not.
Mr.Rankin. From your knowledge of the investigation, do you have any opinion as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the killing of the President?
Mr.Rowley. From what reports I have read, I would say that he was involved in the killing of the President, but I do not have complete knowledge of it.
Mr.Rankin. Do you have any opinion from your knowledge of the investigation as to whether Mr. Ruby was associated with anyone else directly or indirectly in the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.Rowley. I have incomplete knowledge with respect to Ruby. Consequently, I could not say, other than what I saw on television or read in the newspapers, whether he had any connections.
Mr.Rankin. Is there anything in connection with the work of the Commission or what you know about our inquiry here that you would like to add to or suggest that the Commission do beyond what you know of it?
Mr.Rowley. No, sir.
SenatorCooper. May I ask a question?
Mr. Rankin asked you several questions. He asked you if you had credible information, which I think was a proper question. But may I ask if you have any information based upon any facts that you know or based upon any information given to you by persons who claim to have personal knowledge, that there were persons engaged in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy?
Mr.Rowley. I have no such facts, sir.
SenatorCooper. I address the same question as to whether you have any information that the killing of President Kennedy had any connection with any foreign power?
Mr.Rowley. I have no such information.
TheChairman. Mr. Dulles, any questions?
Mr.Dulles. Yes, sir; I have one general question.
From the testimony, and from my own study, it would seem to me that it was likely that there would be parallel, somewhat parallel structures to develop the investigative capabilities with regard to possible suspects in the area of Presidential protection. And my question is as to whether, in order to avoid that undue expense, you think there would be any advantage in putting the responsibility of that within the FBI, who would then be responsible for advising you as to potential suspects and possibly following up on that, rather than putting that responsibility now to a certain extent on the Secret Service—whether there is not a division of responsibility in this field which is unfortunate and may possibly lead to greater expense, personnel doing somewhat duplicative work?
Mr.Rowley. As it applies to this law now?
Mr.Dulles. As it applies to the situation today, without the law which is recommended in your memorandum, and might apply also after that, because the investigation would be required in either case to turn up possible suspects.
My question is, where should that responsibility be primarily centered in order to avoid undue duplication and expense, and yet accomplish our objective?
Mr.Rowley. Well, when you mention duplication, I do not think there has been much duplication in this case, when the President directed the FBI to conduct the investigation to determine whether or not there was a conspiracy.
Mr.Dulles. I am not talking about now. I am talking about investigation prior to, say, the President's visit to city X in the United States.
Mr.Rowley. I see.
Mr.Dulles. Or abroad—where you have the problem of the Secret Service and the CIA.
Mr.Rowley. Well, I think you want to keep the concept of Presidential protection by a small, closely knit group, because of the intimate relationship. But if you want to expand it and give it to another group, to take the long-range view, you do not know what may develop from something like that—whether a police organization could lead to a police state or a military state—if you want to delegate it to some organization like that.
TheChairman. I suppose also, Chief Rowley, that if your people were not doing the spadework on this thing, and keeping their minds steeped in this protection matter, but were obliged to rely on the written records of someone else presented to you, that they would not be in the proper state of mind, would they, to be alert to it?
Mr.Rowley. That is right. There would be a tendency to relax and say John Jones is taking care of it. This is always the possibility that you might encounter something like that.
TheChairman. And in law enforcement, you have to have the feel of the situation, do you not?
You have to do the spadework in order to be aware of every possibility that might develop?
Mr.Rowley. That is true. Because you see in this, Mr. Dulles, on the Presidential detail, it is a unique detail. This is something that they think 24 hours a day. They do it 24 hours a day. They are not otherwise involved. For example, they have the principle of screening the President and being always ready to make a quick exit. They do not have to stop to investigate or identify any person, whoever the assailant might be. Their responsibility is only to protect the President at all times.
Mr.Dulles. But they have to know against whom to protect him.
Mr.Rowley. That is right. But they are ready for anything under the present close screening.
But if I understand your question, Mr. Dulles, you also want to know whether or not in the screening or the investigation of certain groups, like the Communist group, and so forth, since it is their responsibility and not ours, because they have the internal security of the United States, this is something that we have to develop.
Mr.Dulles. Is "they" the FBI?
Mr.Rowley. The FBI.
That is something that we have to have a formal arrangement about, because it enters the realm of internal security. We do not want to conflict with them, ifthat is what is uppermost in your mind. We have to be most correct about that, in any of the agencies, as you know.
Mr.Dulles. How much larger staff do you think you are going to have to have to cover that situation in the future?
Mr.Rowley. Well, I would not know until we see the volume of reports that we get that we have to refer to the field for investigation. Since we are processing them now, we have to wait to make that determination.
Mr.Dulles. Should you do field investigations as contrasted with the FBI—the FBI have a large number of people in a large number of cities throughout the United States. You do not have that?
Mr.Rowley. No; but on the basis of the criteria we discussed earlier, the FBI would give us the information, and if in our evaluation we determined that it should be referred to the field for investigation, particularly in the case of individuals, we would conduct our investigation, to determine whether this individual is a high risk to the President.
Now, where it comes to the group, this is something for the FBI to do, because it ties in with their responsibility for internal security.
Now, if there is a close connection between the two, then we would have to have a formal agreement. But because of our responsibility, and the fact that this is part of the work that we have to undertake, then we would conduct our own investigation, because we know what we are looking for.
Mr.Dulles. If the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had been submitted to you by the FBI, what would you, in the normal course, have done?
Would you have referred that back to them for investigation, or would you have carried on an independent investigation?
I am talking now if that name had been referred to you when you knew you were going to go to Dallas.
Mr.Rowley. If we knew we were going to go to Dallas and we had this present criteria, then we would investigate him.
Mr.Dulles. You would carry on the investigation?
Mr.Rowley. Yes, sir.
Mr.Dulles. Thank you.
Mr.Rankin. Mr. Chief Justice, I am through with Chief Rowley now—except I would like to ask him to supply a copy of the information about their appropriation request, and insert it with Commission Exhibit No. 1028. [The information subsequently furnished by the Secret Service was inserted in the record as a part of Commission Exhibit No. 1028.]
We have Mr. Carswell here. As you recall, there was some difficulty at one meeting about the testimony about what the Secret Service was doing in regard to the Speaker. And while he is here, I would like to straighten that record out.
TheChairman. Very well.
Mr.Rankin. It will be very brief.
TheChairman. Chief, I want to take this opportunity to thank you and the members of your Secret Service for the cooperation you have given to this Commission. They have been very diligent, very helpful, as you personally have been. And we appreciate it.
Mr.Rowley. Thank you, sir.
TheChairman. Mr. Carswell, you have been sworn, have you not?
Mr.Carswell. Yes, sir.
TheChairman. Very well. You may proceed.
Mr.Rankin. Mr. Chief Justice, if the Commission will bear with me just a minute, I would like to tell about my own conversation with the Speaker about this matter prior to his answering in regard to correction of the record.
TheChairman. Very well. You may proceed.
Mr.Rankin. After the matter came up before the Commission, I was asked by one of the Commissioners to see the Speaker, Mr. McCormack, and I did that at his office. And he informed me that the Secret Service and also the FBI had undertaken to try to give him protection because of his position in the lineof succession, and that because of the interference that he felt and his wife felt with their relationship over the years in being alone and together in their family life, he did not like to have that interference, and he asked them not to participate any more in furnishing that protection for him. He said it was his own responsibility in taking that action, and he wanted that to be clear, and that he thought that as far as any protection he needed, he had plenty of protection with the kind of protection that the Congress had around him in the performance of his duty.
It came to Mr. Carswell's attention, right immediately after he had testified, that his statements in that regard were inaccurate because of the change that had occurred that had not come to his attention. He called me and he said he would like to correct the record.
Mr. Carswell, will you tell us now what the facts are as you have learned?
Mr.Carswell. When I testified here before I was asked, I believe, what protection the Secret Service was providing the Speaker. I said that we were providing protection comparable to that previously provided to the Vice President. I did that on the basis of checking with Chief Rowley immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, and he told me at that time such protection was being provided to the Speaker.
I understood that that was the case the next day—because at that time we were not certain what was going on. I had not heard anything about it after that. And I assumed that the situation continued as it was immediately after the assassination. But that was not the case.
As Mr. Rankin has stated, the Speaker requested the Secret Service to discontinue assigning agents to him for protection, and we did what he requested. That is the present situation.
Mr.Rankin. That is all I have.
TheChairman. Very well.
Thank you, Mr. Carswell.
Well, gentlemen, I think that will be all today. The Commission will adjourn now.
(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
The President's Commission met at 10:30 a.m., on June 23, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.
Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members.
Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel.
(Members present: Chief Justice Warren, Representative Ford, and Mr. Dulles.)
TheChairman. The Commission will be in order. Mr. Flannery, you are here representing Mr. Weissman?
Mr.Flannery. Yes; Your Honor.
TheChairman. Mr. Jenner, would you mind making a brief statement of the testimony we expect to develop here?
Mr.Jenner. Yes; Mr. Chief Justice.
Mr. Bernard William Weissman, who is the witness today, played some part in the preparation of and the publication of the advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on the 22d of November 1963, and we will seek to develop the facts with respect to that. It has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1031, entitled "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy."
TheChairman. Yes.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1031 for identification.)
Mr.Jenner. Mr. Weissman's deposition was taken in part. He was not then represented by counsel, and he had some qualms about it and raised the issue, and as soon as it was raised we suspended the deposition. He appears this morning with Mr. Flannery as his counsel.
Mr. Flannery, would you be good enough to state your full name?
Mr.Flannery. Thomas A. Flannery.
TheChairman. And you are a practitioner in Washington?
Mr.Flannery. Yes; Your Honor, I am a partner in the firm of Hamilton and Hamilton.
TheChairman. Mr. Weissman; will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr.Weissman. I do.
TheChairman. Will you be seated? Mr. Jenner will question.
Mr.Jenner. Your full name is Bernard William Weissman?
Mr.Weissman. That is right.
Mr.Jenner. And you now reside in New York City, do you not?
Mr.Weissman. Mount Vernon, N.Y.
Mr.Jenner. Would you give your address?
Mr.Weissman. 439 South Columbus Avenue, Mount Vernon, N.Y.
Mr.Jenner. You were born November 1, 1937?
Mr.Weissman. That is right.
Mr.Jenner. You are almost 27 years old?
Mr.Weissman. Yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. All right. I would like some vital statistics, if I may, Mr. Weissman. Are you presently employed?
Mr.Weissman. Yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. And where are you employed presently?
Mr.Weissman. Carpet Corp. of America, 655 Clinton Avenue, Newark, N.J.
Mr.Jenner. I see. Is that connected in any fashion with the Carpet Co. by which you were employed in Dallas, Tex., last fall?
Mr.Weissman. None whatsoever.
Mr.Jenner. You are a native born American?
Mr.Weissman. Yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. And your folks are as well?
Mr.Weissman. Excuse me?
Mr.Jenner. Your folks are as well, mother and father?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. And you have two brothers?
Mr.Weissman. Yes; I do.
Mr.Jenner. And they likewise are native born Americans?
Mr.Weissman. Yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. What is your marital status at the present time?
Mr.Weissman. Separated.
Mr.Jenner. You were married or are married to Jane Byrnes Weissman?
Mr.Weissman. Yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. She is a native born American, also?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. You have been separated since when?
Mr.Weissman. May 16, 1963.
Mr.Jenner. So you became separated from her before you went to Dallas in the fall of 1963?
Mr.Weissman. I was in the service at the time.
(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)
Mr.Jenner. Now, are you acquainted with a gentleman by the name of Larrie Schmidt?
Mr.Weissman. Yes; I am.
Mr.Jenner. When did you first meet him?
Mr.Weissman. In Munich, Germany, about July or August of 1962.
Mr.Jenner. His middle name is Henry. Are you aware of that?
Mr.Weissman. No; I am not aware of that.
Mr.Jenner. Where does he reside?
Mr.Weissman. Well, he was in Dallas. I understand he has dropped from sight. I don't know where he is now.
Mr.Jenner. Was he residing in Dallas in the fall of 1963 when you were there?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. When did you arrive in Dallas?
Mr.Weissman. In Dallas, on the 4th of November 1963.
Mr.Jenner. And was Mr. Schmidt aware that you were about to come to Dallas?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. And what was the purpose of your coming to Dallas?
Mr.Weissman. I will be as brief as possible. It was simply to follow through on plans that we had made in Germany, in order to develop a conservative organization in Dallas, under our leadership.
Mr.Jenner. Did that conservative organization, or your purpose in going to Dallas, as well, have any business context in addition to politics?
Mr.Weissman. I would say 50 percent of the purpose was business and the other 50 percent politics. We figured that only rich men can indulge full time in politics, so first we had to make some money before we could devote ourselves to the political end completely.
Mr.Jenner. In short compass; would you tell the Commission your background up to the time that you entered military service, and give us the date of the entry of military service?
Mr.Weissman. Do you mean as far as my schooling and where I lived before then? Before I went into the service?
Mr.Jenner. Let's take it from high school.
Mr.Weissman. I graduated from Edison Technical High School in Mount Vernon in June of 1956, went to work for the Nuclear Development Corp. as an experimental machinist in July of that year and left them in August of 1957. I then went on the road with my brother, Joe, and his wife, working as demonstrators or pitchmen, you might say, in department stores, selling some patent medicines and the like. Did this for about—oh, that was from the 18th of November 1957 up until about April or May of 1958.
Mr.Jenner. Your brother Joe is a little bit older than you?
Mr.Weissman. He is 20 months older, yes.
Mr.Jenner. And his given name is Joe, and not Joseph?
Mr.Weissman. Joseph. Then—let's see—I went to work for the American Schools of Music, which my brother founded in Jersey.
Mr.Jenner. Which brother?
Mr.Weissman. My brother Joe—in New Jersey. And I stayed with him as his sales manager for a little over a year.
Then I went to work for Encyclopedia Americana, Harvard Classics Division, as a district sales manager. I was with them about a year—until 19—I believe it was September of 1960.
I was starving, so I went to work for Underwood Olivetti, in Newark, N.J., and I sold typewriters and calculators up until May of 1961, at which time I quit, tried to go into business for myself in costume jewelry, formed a corporation known as Jane Williams Co., Inc., and in August of 1961, I was drafted into the Army. That was on August 5, 1961.
Mr.Jenner. You were honorably discharged from the Army in August 1963?
Mr.Weissman. August 5; yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. What has been your father's occupation?
Mr.Weissman. Well, for about 20 years he was plant superintendent for University Loudspeakers in White Plains, N.Y. They moved to some place outwest. He quit and went back to work with Local 3 in New York City, IBW.
Mr.Jenner. Your father's name is Harry?
Mr.Weissman. Harry Weissman; yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. Do you reside with him now at 439 South Columbus Avenue in Mount Vernon?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. You were discharged from the Army honorably?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. You were married when, sir?
Mr.Weissman. November 7, 1958.
Mr.Jenner. A New York girl?
Mr.Weissman. Yonkers, N.Y.
Mr.Jenner. And you have some children?
Mr.Weissman. No.
Mr.Jenner. You separated, as you have indicated. Now, would you start from the Army?
Before I get to that, you met Larrie Schmidt in the Army?
Mr.Weissman. Yes; I did.
Mr.Jenner. What other buddies did you have in the Army with whom you again renewed your acquaintance when you were discharged from the Army and went to Dallas?
Mr.Weissman. Only one beside Larrie. That was Bill Burley. William Burley.
Mr.Jenner. What contact did you have with Mr. Larrie Schmidt and Mr. Burley after you left the Army, which eventually brought you to Dallas? State it in your own words and chronologically, please.
Mr.Weissman. Well, I got out of service on the 5th, and I spent the month of August looking for a job. During this time, I had been in contact with Larrie. I had telephoned him once during August. Things were pretty bad. I didn't have any money. As far as I could ascertain he was broke himself. There wasn't any percentage in going to Dallas and not accomplishing anything. As a matter of fact, I had lost a good deal of confidence in Larrie in the year that he left Munich and was in Dallas, and the letters I got from him—he seemed to have deviated from our original plan. I wasn't too hot about going. He didn't seem to be accomplishing anything, except where it benefited him.
Mr.Jenner. You say he deviated from the original plan. What was the original plan?
Mr.Weissman. Well, the original plan was to stay away from various organizations and societies that were, let's call them, radical, and had a reputation as being such.
Mr.Jenner. When you say radical, what do you mean?
Mr.Weissman. I mean radical right. And I considered myself more of an idealist than a politician. Larrie was more of a politician than an idealist. He went with the wind—which is good for him, I guess, and bad for me.
In any case Larrie wrote me easily a dozen letters imploring me to come down, telling me in one that he doesn't need me down there, but he would love to have my help because he can't accomplish anything without me, and in the next one saying, "Forget it, I don't need you," and so forth. As the letters came, they went with the wind, depending on what he was doing personally. And along about the end of October, I had been in contact with Bill—he was in Baltimore, Md., selling hearing aids. He wasn't getting anywhere. He was making a living.
Mr.Jenner. Up to this point each of you was barely making a living?
Mr.Weissman. Right.
Mr.Jenner. And you had no capital?
Mr.Weissman. No.
Mr.Jenner. No funds of your own?
Mr.Weissman. None at all. And I got in touch with Bill. Actually, I forgot how it was. He wrote me a letter and I wrote him a letter. In any case, it came about that I invited Bill up to Mount Vernon, because he figured if there was any money to be made it would be made in New York, because this is asalesman's paradise. I invited Bill to Mount Vernon. He came up about the last week of August.
I am sorry—October of 1963. And we set up about looking for work and trying to find him work, that is—I was working for the Encyclopedia Britannica, Great Books Division, as a district manager in Westchester County. So I more or less supported Bill the best I could. I fed him and gave him a room to sleep in and so forth.
In the meantime, Larrie had up to a point—hadn't accomplished anything in the way that we could use gainfully or to our purposes in Dallas. So there was really no reason to go down there—up until about, I guess, the 26th or 28th of October.
Mr.Jenner. Excuse me. Why were you thinking of Dallas at this time?
Mr.Weissman. Well, I kept getting these letters from Larrie. I tried to forget about it, and he constantly reminded me. Once or twice a week I would get a letter. And it was a question—I was almost obligated to go, because I had promised I would be there. And still having somewhat of a close relationship with Larrie, through my promises, I sort of felt morally obligated to go down there.
And, at the same time, it was new, different, exciting, it had a lot of promise for the future if it worked out.
So Adlai Stevenson was down there in the latter part of October.
(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
Mr.Weissman. And I didn't pay too much attention to this—until the evening of Stevenson's speech at the Dallas Auditorium. And I got a long distance telephone call from Larrie, and he explained what had happened—that Stevenson had been struck by several individuals down there.
Mr.Jenner. Please call on your best recollection and tell us what he said to you. You recall that he made that telephone call?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. You recognized his voice?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. You are clear it was Larrie Schmidt?
Mr.Weissman. That is right.
Mr.Jenner. What did he say?
Mr.Weissman. He said that big things are happening, and he went—this is before it hit the papers. He told me what had happened with Adlai Stevenson.
Mr.Jenner. What did he say?
Mr.Weissman. Something like, "I think we are" he always speaks I this and I that. "I have made it, I have done it for us," something to this effect. In other words, this is not exactly his words. I don't recall his exact words. But this is essentially it. Andthat——
Mr.Jenner. Did you say to him, "What do you mean you have made it for us?"
Mr.Weissman. When he said, "I have made it for us," meaning Larrie Schmidt—meaning me and Bill and whoever else was going to come downhere——
Mr.Jenner. Thatwas——
Mr.Weissman. Bill Burley.
Mr.Jenner. What did you say when he made that remark?
Mr.Weissman. I said "Great."
Mr.Jenner. What did it mean to you, sir?
Mr.Weissman. What did it mean to me?
Mr.Jenner. It is a generalization.
Mr.Weissman. That is it. In other words, I didn't really know what to think. I had to go along with him, because I didn't know anything about it, aside from what he told me.
And he said, "If we are going to take advantage of the situation, or if you are," meaning me, "you better hurry down here and take advantage of the publicity, and at least become known among these various rightwingers, because this is the chance we have been looking for to infiltrate some of these organizations and become known," in other words, go along with the philosophy we had developed in Munich.
Mr.Jenner. Could I go back a little bit, please. You received a telephone call from Mr. Schmidt.
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. At that moment, you knew nothing about the Adlai Stevenson incident, is that correct?
Mr.Weissman. I had received a letter from him several weeks before saying that—if you will wait just a minute, I think I might have the letter with me.
Mr.Jenner. All right. While you are looking, what was your rank when you were discharged?
Mr.Weissman. Pfc.
Mr.Jenner. Did you reach any higher rank when you were in the service?
Mr.Weissman. No; this is a letter I received on October 1, 1963.
Mr.Jenner. For purposes of identification, we will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1033.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033 for identification.)
Mr.Jenner. May I approach the witness, Mr. Chief Justice?
TheChairman. Yes; go right ahead.
Mr.Jenner. That is marked only for identification for the moment.
Mr.Flannery. The record will reflect it is a three-page letter.
Mr.Jenner. Thank you.
Marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033, is that not correct?
Mr.Weissman. Yes; that is correct. Now, in Exhibit No. 1033, the letter I received from Larrie on October 1—that was typed on October 1, 1963, and mailed on 7 October 1963.
Mr.Jenner. You are looking at the envelope in which the letter was enclosed when you received it?
Mr.Weissman. That is correct. And he states in the last paragraph of his letter in a postscript, "My brother has begun working as an aide to General Walker. He is being paid full time, et cetera. Watch your newspaper for news of huge demonstrations here in Dallas on October 3 and 4 in connection with U.N.-day and Adlai Stevenson speech here. Plans already made, strategy being carried out."
This was the only advance notice I had of this. And I didn't give it too much thought, because he had said many things like it before, just to build something up, and nothing ever came of it.
Mr.Jenner. Is that document signed?
Mr.Weissman. No; it is not.
Mr.Jenner. Does it bear a typed signature?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. Did you have occasion to speak with Mr. Schmidt respecting the contents of that letter at any time subsequent to your receiving it?
Mr.Weissman. I don't recall.
Mr.Jenner. Did you ever talk with him about having received that particular letter, that he acknowledged having sent to you?
Mr.Weissman. Yes; as a matter of fact, I was pretty worried about his brother becoming involved with General Walker, and I thought it might give us a black eye.
Mr.Jenner. And what did you do—call Mr. Schmidt or talk with him on that subject?
Mr.Weissman. I don't recall if I spoke with him, or if I wrote it to him in a letter. I don't recall.
Mr.Jenner. But you had occasion to confirm the fact that the letter now identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1033 was written by Mr. Schmidt and mailed to you in an envelope, which we will mark as Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A?
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A for identification.)
Mr.Jenner. Did you hear my question?
Mr.Weissman. Repeat it, please.
(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. So that when you had your telephone conversation which you were in the course of relating, with Mr. Schmidt, you were aware when he made the exclamation which you have described, of that to which he was then referring—that is, the Stevenson incident?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. Was there anything else in Mr. Schmidt's letter that disturbed you?
Mr.Weissman. I received so many.
Would it be permissible to—excuse me.
Mr. Jenner, would it be permissible to read this letter into the record?
Mr.Jenner. My trouble is, Mr. Weissman, and Mr. Flannery—I haven't seen the letter.
Mr. ChiefJustice——
TheChairman. I suppose Mr. Jenner could see the letter for a moment, couldn't he?
Mr.Weissman. Definitely; yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. Mr. Flannery, would you be good enough to pass it up?
(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr.Weissman. You see, up to the point of that letter—excuse me.
Mr.Jenner. Mr. Chief Justice, it is quite apparent to me, from glancing through the letter, that this is a letter that we—in connection with Mr. Weissman's testimony, that we would like to offer in evidence in due course.
And, with that in mind, Mr. Weissman, it will not be necessary for you to read paragraphs from the letter, unless in the course of your testimony you feel it will round out your testimony and serve to refresh your recollection as to events you might wish to relate.
Mr.Weissman. I would like to take a look at it now.
(At this point, Representative Ford reentered the hearing room.)
Mr.Jenner. Ready?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. Mr. Reporter, would you be good enough to read, let us say, the last question and answer of the witness?
(The question and answer, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)
Mr.Jenner. The point I was making, Mr. Weissman, was that when you received the telephone call about which you were testifying, in which Mr. Schmidt exclaimed, "I have made it for us," or words to that effect, you were then aware of that to which he was referring, at least in general?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. So that was the reason why you didn't ask him to elaborate upon what he meant by, "I have made it for us"?
Mr.Weissman. Right. That is right.
Mr.Jenner. And that was the fact that he, as you understood it, am I correct in saying, had had something to do with the organization of the picketing or other demonstrations at the time that Mr. Stevenson made his visit to Dallas?
Mr.Weissman. Well, at the time I was almost—Larrie led me to believe that he had organized the whole thing. And it transpired when I got to Dallas that I found that he had led a group of 11 University of Dallas students in quiet picketing near the entrance to the auditorium, and didn't engage in any physical violence of any sort.
Mr.Jenner. But up to the time that you arrived in Dallas, you were under the impression that he had had a more extensive part?
Mr.Weissman. This is what he led me to believe. In other words, he was trying to—he wanted to get me to Dallas in the worst way. And he wanted it to look like he was on the hot seat and he would be there unless I came down to help him. In other words, he is throwing my obligation at me. And trying to convince me in various ways, as I mentioned, to come down there, so we can get moving on what we had planned in Munich.
Mr.Jenner. Did you receive a letter from him dated October 29, 1963, a copy of which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1032, and I tender to you. You may have the original among your papers.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1032 for identification.)
Mr.Weissman. Yes; I did receive this letter, Exhibit No. 1032, from Larrie, about the 29th of October.
Mr.Jenner. And, gentlemen of the Commission, this is a letter dated, as the witness has stated—it is addressed to, "Dear Bernie and Bill," and I assume Billis——
Mr.Weissman. Bill Burley.
Mr.Jenner. He was then staying with you in New York?
Mr.Weissman. Right.
Mr.Jenner. And it is signed Larrie. By the way, do you have the original of this letter with you?
Mr.Weissman. I don't think so. Let me see. No; as a matter of fact, I believe the situation was when I gave the letter to the FBI, they asked me if I needed it back right away, and I said no—I didn't see any value in it, frankly. And then I spoke with Mr. Reedy, the agent who had conducted the investigation at the FBI headquarters in New York, and he said, "Do you want the letter?" And I said, "I don't particularly need it," and I don't recall if I ever got it back.
Mr.Jenner. All right. But the document which has been marked with an exhibit number is a true and correct copy of the letter you received from Larrie Schmidt?
Mr.Weissman. It seems to be; yes, sir.
Mr.Jenner. Now, in that letter, there is a reference to CUSA in capital letters. What is CUSA, what was CUSA? What was its genesis?
Mr.Weissman. Well, CUSA, the letters stand for Conservatism USA, for lack of a better name. Larrie had originally founded this himself—as far as I know he had originally founded this himself in Munich some time in 1961.
Mr.Jenner. You mean it was a concept of his?
Mr.Weissman. I don't know if it was his. But I was led to believe the concept was his; and when I became associated with him, almost a year after he had started to develop thisorganization——
Mr.Jenner. And while you were still in the Army?
Mr.Weissman. While I was still in the Army; right.
RepresentativeBoggs. What was your rank in the Army?
Mr.Weissman. Private, first class.
RepresentativeBoggs. That is when you completed your service?
Mr.Weissman. Yes; at the time I was pfc, also.
RepresentativeBoggs. How long were you in the Army?
Mr.Weissman. Two years.
RepresentativeBoggs. When you were separated you were private, first class?
Mr.Weissman. That is right. Here is how it came about. I had been in the field on an Army training test. And I had been discussing just political views, foreign policy especially.
Mr.Dulles. Is this Germany, now?
Mr.Weissman. Yes; this is Germany.
Mr.Jenner. Who was the overall commander in Germany at that time?
Mr.Weissman. The overall commander?
Mr.Jenner. Was General Walker one of the commanders at that time?
Mr.Weissman. No; he had been removed at that time. In any case, he would have been about 60 or 70 miles—he was based in Landshut, Germany.
In any case, I was on this army training test with my company, MP Company, and I was talking to the company clerk—he had a book. We just got onto a discussion of politics, just generally. And I expounded some views on foreign policy, and where I agreed or disagreed. And I went into some great detail. And he said, "Gee, if I didn't know better I would say it is Larrie speaking."
And I said, "What do you mean?"
And he went into this CUSA organization. He was at that time a partner in CUSA. It was set up as a business.
RepresentativeBoggs. What does CUSA mean?
Mr.Weissman. Conservatism USA.
RepresentativeBoggs. What was Mr. Schmidt's rank?
Mr.Weissman. He was specialist fourth class, SP-4, and he was in charge of public relations for Armed Forces Recreation Centers.
Mr.Jenner. How old a man is he?
Mr.Weissman. Larrie is 26 or 27.
Mr.Jenner. About the same age as yours?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. And Mr. Burley?
Mr.Weissman. Twenty-nine now, I believe.
Mr.Jenner. A little older—about 2 years older than you and Mr. Schmidt.
Mr.Weissman. In there. A year and a half, 2 years, yes.
Mr.Jenner. Excuse me. What was his rank?
Mr.Weissman. Corporal. At the time that I met Bill he was a pfc. In fact, Bill Burley didn't become really involved in this until, I would say, 2 or 3 months before we left Germany. We left there about the same time, we were discharged about the same time; and, anyway, I was talking to the company clerk, Norman Baker, who was a partner in CUSA. I didn't know this at the time; but he just said he wanted to introduce me to somebody.
Mr.Jenner. What was the rank of the company clerk?
Mr.Weissman. At that time—I think he was the only corporal company clerk in the army. And he introduced me to Larrie several weeks later after we had returned from the field.
They tried to pull a big snow job, saying public relations and so on and so forth, just to sort of impress me, and they did. They worked very well together; and, in any case, I became involved in it.
I don't recollect the step-by-step involvement—just that I jumped in with both feet, because I liked the idea.
Mr.Jenner. This was Conservatism USA, and it consisted of an idea at this particular time?
Mr.Weissman. Right.
Mr.Jenner. And associated with that idea were these people, Larrie Schmidt, yourself, wasBurley——
Mr.Weissman. At that time, I don't think so.
Mr.Jenner. But he did become?
Mr.Weissman. Later.
Mr.Jenner. And the company clerk—what was his name?
Mr.Weissman. Norman Baker.
Mr.Jenner. And yourself—what was that—five? Were there any others?
Mr.Weissman. There were others, but it was the sort of thing where they were involved but not involved. They were just sort of going along for the ride, because it was interesting, and you might say a little diverse from the humdrum army life.
Mr.Jenner. Was CUSA ever organized formally in the sense of corporate organization or drafting of partnership papers and registration under the Assumed Name Act in Texas?
Mr.Weissman. In Texas; no.
Mr.Jenner. I take it it was organized?
Mr.Weissman. Yes; it was.
Mr.Jenner. As a corporation or partnership?
Mr.Weissman. As a partnership.
Mr.Jenner. In what state?
Mr.Weissman. In Munich, Germany.
Mr.Jenner. I see. And that was a sort of declaration among you?
Mr.Weissman. It was a written declaration; yes.
Mr.Jenner. Who drafted that?
Mr.Weissman. We did—that is, we called ourselves—the hangers-on were identified as the outer circle, and the partners were the inner circle. This was just for ease of identification. This, I think, would be the easiest way to really express it.
And the partners, the five partners, were the inner circle, the leaders of this organization;and——
TheChairman. Gentlemen, may I interrupt for just a minute? I have an appointment I must keep at the court.
Congressman Ford, will you preside, please?
RepresentativeFord. Surely.
(At this point, Chief Justice Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)
RepresentativeFord. Will you proceed, please, Mr. Jenner.
Mr.Jenner. Thank you. In short compass, tell us the objectives of CUSA.
Mr.Weissman. Well, the objectives of CUSA were substantially to set up a political business organization. We used a rough comparison with Ford and the Ford Foundation as an example. The Ford Foundation would be CUSA, ConservatismUSA,and the Ford would be AMBUS, or American business.
Mr.Jenner. What was AMBUS?
Mr.Weissman. American business. This was the business half of the political organization.
Mr.Jenner. This was to be a combination of business and politics?
Mr.Weissman. Right. We were going to use the businessend——
Mr.Jenner. Which you called AMBUS?
Mr.Weissman. That is right.
Mr.Jenner. That wouldbe——
Mr.Weissman. American business, or American businesses.
Mr.Jenner. I don't get the initials. A-B-U-S?
Mr.Weissman. A-M-B-U-S—American business.
Mr.Jenner. All right.
Mr.Weissman. And we were trying to develop, in our own minds, without actually doing it at the time, ways to build up various businesses that would support us and at the same time support our political activities.
Mr.Jenner. All right. Could I characterize it this way—that a material objective of this group or partnership was ultimately a self-interest in business?
Mr.Weissman. No.
Mr.Jenner. Coupled with a political arm which was to aid or assist in the business, and each was to feed the other?
Mr.Weissman. The business arm was to be developed mainly to feed the political arm.
(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr.Weissman. We were mainly interested in the political end. At least this is my feeling on it. Mainly interested in the political end. And the business end, while, of course, we hoped it would succeed, in my mind was merely to support us politically.
(At this point, Representative Ford reentered the hearing room.)
Mr.Jenner. All right. Now, as of this moment, Mr. Weissman, there were the five of you only. There were no others who were part of the combination business-political group?
Mr.Weissman. We left out one man, one of the original men. His name was James Moseley.
Mr.Jenner. Was he a GI with you?
Mr.Weissman. No; he was an American civilian. His father was a major—is a major in the Army.
Mr.Jenner. And was he an acquaintance of yours?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. Prior to this time?
Mr.Weissman. Not prior to this. I met him when I went into the organization.
Mr.Jenner. I see. Was he an acquaintance of Mr. Schmidt's?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. How did he get in, is what I am getting at? How did he get into this little group here?
Mr.Weissman. They all hung around the same bar.
Mr.Jenner. What bar?
Mr.Weissman. The Gastatte Lukullus.
RepresentativeBoggs. How far was that from the bar where Hitler used to gather?
Mr.Weissman. A couple of miles, I think.
Mr.Jenner. It is a bar in Munich?
Mr.Weissman. Yes. It is a GI guest house.
Mr.Jenner. This man you have now mentioned, Moseley, was a civilian in Germany?
Mr.Weissman. He was a civilian; yes.
Mr.Jenner. How did he come to be in Munich? Was his father stationed there?
Mr.Weissman. His father was stationed there. But he was also employed by Rambler—he was selling Ramblers.
Mr.Jenner. What is Mr. Moseley's hometown?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. What is Mr. Mosley's hometown?
Mr.Weissman. I believe it is New York. I am not sure.
Mr.Jenner. How old a man is he?
Mr.Weissman. He is a pretty young fellow. He is about 21.
Mr.Jenner. Now, have you named all of you who were the nucleus of this group?
Mr.Weissman. To my recollection, yes.
Mr.Jenner. Had you finished your statement as to the general—the general statement as to the purpose of this organization which consisted of the two arms?
Mr.Weissman. Not completely. I think what might bear directly is we had planned while in Munich that in order to accomplish our goals, to try to do it from scratch would be almost impossible, because it would be years before we could even get the funds to develop a powerful organization. So we had planned to infiltrate various rightwing organizations and by our own efforts become involved in the hierarchy of these various organizations and eventually get ourselves elected or appointed to various higher offices in these organizations, and by doing this bring in some of our own people, and eventually take over the leadership of these organizations, and at that time having our people in these various organizations, we would then, you might say, call a conference and have them unite, and while no one knew of the existence of CUSA aside from us, we would then bring them all together, unite them, and arrange to have it called CUSA.
Mr.Jenner. You never accomplished this, did you?
Mr.Weissman. Almost. Here is how far we did get.
Larrie had—and this was according to plan—the first organization we planned to infiltrate was the NIC, National Indignation Convention, headed by Frank McGee in Dallas. About a week or so after Larrie got to Dallas he got himself a job with the NIC, as one of the very few paid men.
This didn't last too long, because a few weeks after that the NIC went under. And we had also—in other words, we had planned to use these organizations as vehicles toaccomplish——
Mr.Jenner. Keep going on those details of your infiltration.
Mr.Weissman. All right. We had planned to infiltrate these various rightwing organizations.
Mr.Jenner. You mentioned one.
Mr.Weissman. The NIC. The Young Americans for Freedom. We succeeded there.
MrJenner. What organization is that?
Mr.Weissman. The Young Americans for Freedom? This was an organization essentially of conservative youths, college students, and if I recall I think the most they ever accomplished was running around burning baskets from Yugoslavia.
Mr.Jenner. Where was it based?
Mr.Weissman. This is southwest. Regional headquarters was in Dallas, Tex., Box 2364.
Mr.Jenner. And the earlier organization, the organization you mentioned a moment ago, NIC—where was that based?
Mr.Weissman. Dallas.
Mr.Jenner. All right. What is the next one?
Mr.Weissman. We had also discussed getting some people in with General Walker, getting some people into the John Birch Society.
Mr.Jenner. Stick with General Walker for a moment. To what extent were you able to infiltrate, as you call it, General Walker's group?
Mr.Weissman. Well, this was rather a fiasco. Larrie's brother, as I mentioned in the letter—Larrie's brother went to work for General Walker.
Mr.Jenner. What was his name?
Mr.Weissman. I don't know his first name. But Larrie led me to believe his brother was some guy. His brother is about 29. And the only thing I ever heard from Larrie about his brother was good; and when he mentioned that his brother had joined the Walker organization, I figured this is another step in the right direction. In other words, he was solidifying his argument as to why I should come to Dallas.
Mr.Jenner. And this is what he told you?
Mr.Weissman. Right. So when I got to Dallas, I found that Larrie's brother drank too much, and he had—well, I considered him a moron. He didn't have any sense at all. He was very happy with $35 a week and room and board that General Walker was giving him as his chauffeur and general aide. And so I tossed that out the window that we would never get into the Walker organization this way.
Mr.Jenner. This man's name, by any chance, was not Volkmar?
Mr.Weissman. This name is entirely unfamiliar to me. Never heard it before.
SenatorCooper. Could you identify the Walker organization? You keep speaking of the Walker organization.
Mr.Weissman. General Edwin Walker.
Mr.Jenner. General Edwin A. Walker?
Mr.Weissman. Yes.
Mr.Jenner. Did you ever meet him?
Mr.Weissman. No; I never have.
RepresentativeFord. How did you infiltrate the Young Americans for Freedom, and what led you to believe you had been successful?
Mr.Weissman. Well, Larrie had been named executive secretary of the Dallas chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom. And another man—his name is in one of these letters somewhere—I don't recall it offhand—who was brought into CUSA by Larrie, was named chairman or vice chairman—vice chairman. And the only other move that we had to make in order to take control of Dallas Young Americans for Freedom would have been to get rid of the chairman, who was anti-Larrie Schmidt. He was absolutely no help to us. And this was on its way to accomplishment. But for some reason or another, there was some sort of an argument. I am still not clear on what happened. I wasn't there. I just can take it secondhand from Larrie.
A friend of Larrie's had come to Dallas—this was Larry Jones, another partnerin——
Mr.Jenner. He is mentioned in some of these interviews. Did you meet Larry Jones?
Mr.Weissman. I didn't meet him in Dallas; no. He was gone before I got there. But Larry had come to Dallas, he had stayed a few weeks, had made friends with these people, and I had advocated many and many a time—I saw through Larry the first time I met him—is to get rid of this guy, because he was not going to do us any good.
Mr.Jenner. You did meet Jones?