Present at the cover-up: how a CIA man stonewalled Congress

Earlier this week JFK Facts reported that the CIA admitted in a recent court filing that George Joannides, a  deceased undercover officer who played a mysterious and still unexplained role in the JFK assassination story,  had a residence in New Orleans in 1964.

Why is that significant?

New Orleans is where members of a CIA-funded anti-Castro organization guided and monitored by Joannides had a series of encounters with Lee Harvey Oswald in August 1963. When Oswald was arrested for killing Kennedy, Joannides’ Cuban agents immediately linked him to Castro, generating headlines about “the pro-Castro gunman.”

Fifteen years later, the CIA called Joannides out of retirement to stonewall congressional investigators who had reopened the JFK case.

In this video for Black Ops Radio, Dan Hardway, a former investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassination, talks about how Joannides thwarted his efforts to investigate the CIA

Hardway,  now an attorney in North Carolina, provides an eyewitness account of the possibly illegal actions of  the CIA in obstructing Congress’s efforts to investigate JFK’s assassination.

The Joannides story so far:

 ”5 Decades Later Some JFK FIles Still Sealed” (Associated Press, Aug. 18. 2013)

“Justice Dept. denies CIA officer was honored for coverup” (JFK Facts, Dec. 17, 2012)

“Court uphold public benefit of disclsoure about CIA officer in JFK story” (JFK Facts, June 19, 2013)

“CIA Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery” (New York Times, October 17, 2009)

“Morley v. CIA: Why I sued the CIA for JFK assassination records” (JFK Facts, Feb. 23, 2013)


Help JFK Facts bring the truth about the JFK story to the Internet and social media

Donate Now


  1. Chris Roberts says:

    If Oswald was such a loner as the OS goes why does he come Into contact with CIA and FBI people?

    Why would the CIA have to lie about anything if it had no Involvement
    with oswald?

    Why would there be so many files keep Hidden Is JFK assassination was done by 1 loner?

  2. bogman says:

    One has to think they’re holding on to these 50-year-old files for one of two reasons:

    1) The information will embarrass the agency and hamper it’s position and prestige in the federal govt, ie. “We were messing with Oswald in a covert op in NO rather than WATCHING him.”

    2) The CIA is implicated as either a witting or unwitting participant in the assassination, causing potential social unrest and the dissolution of the CIA and re-evaluation of our entire national security structure

    Any other reasons?

    • Photon says:

      Yes. The files contain sensitive intelligence gathering information and techniques that have nothing to do with Oswald but are still of value today. That is all.

      • Neil says:

        How can you be so confident about what’s in the files?

      • Paulf says:

        And you know this how? Have you seen the files?

      • bogman says:

        But regular reports on the DRE from the group’s CIA handlers before and after Joannides are available but not for the 17 months Joannides ran them?

      • Mitch says:

        Why do you think the US intell techniques from 50 years ago are still well kept secrets? The KGB had been eating our lunch for years by the time the files in question were created.

        You’re merely asserting something you have no evidence for – almost sounding like a conspiracy theorist in the process.

      • Thomas says:

        Photon’s statement,which cannot be corroborated by any known facts, but is stated nonetheless as if it was proven, objective reality, reveals the levels of denial and/or deception in this case.

      • John Kirsch says:

        How can you possibly make a flat statement about what’s in the files? Have you seen the material?

        • Photon says:

          I can tell you that intelligence assets still alive would be harmed by release of some of these records to the detriment of national security.
          That shall be my final mention on this topic.

          • Mitch says:

            Which assets in the early 1960′s do you presume would be in harm’s way today? The dead Joannides? Students from the DRE that are now in their 70′s? Do you think that these individuals are still assets in place today? Or do you think that the Castros would punish them for their 50 year old deeds? Even though he had an effective intelligence service capable of rooting out US assets in the 60′s .

            Defend. Deflect. Deny. Discombobulate.

          • Neil says:

            People like George HW Bush perhaps? He denied working for the CIA before becoming director even though there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence(Zapata Oil, Hoover’s JFK assassination memo, etc).

            Even though it would expose the former President as a liar, I don’t think it would do him any harm since it’s already assumed that he worked for the CIA before becoming Director.

            Other than a public figure like Bush, I don’t see how these files would harm obscure individuals who are in old age now or national security…

          • John Kirsch says:

            “I can tell you that intelligence assets still alive would be harmed by release of some of these records to the detriment of national security.”
            And you know this how? Unless you answer that question, I will have no reason to believe anything you say.
            You present yourself as someone with special inside knowledge but when challenged, you either stonewall, like a figure out of Watergate, try to confuse the issue, or hide behind “national security.”
            I think you’re just looking for attention.

          • leslie sharp says:

            These men and women are now at least in their 70′s. Photon, your argument presents an interesting theory: is it their offspring that might be compromised by revelation of these documents (Tilton and Bush come to mind)? Or might it be the tactics used during certain operations leading to the assassination that would be exposed; tried and true tactics of ongoing operations that are little more than elevated versions of those in place during the Cold War? The only difference being, new players? That would certainly be reason enough to withhold classified documents. I’m reminded of an experience in Tampa involving a Tulsa-born man wanting to sell jeeps, loan money for a legitimate restaurant operation (read money-laundering), using Eastern European banks and BCCI to transfer funds, with introductions to a former Air Force officer/Tampa based JP Morgan bank executive whose offices were laughably transparent in serving as a front operation for ‘something.’ Does the intelligence community re-invent the wheel or simply perfect it?

          • S.R."Dusty" Rohde says:

            Well yes, revealing info on the Criminal activities of certain Intelligence assets could do them harm. I think we get the idea.

      • TLR says:

        85-year-old men in rest homes are praying that their sources and methods won’t be revealed. God only knows what Castro and the Russians might do with such information.

      • joe scrote says:

        There are no intelligence gathering techniques from 1960′s technology that we don’t know about Photon.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Yes Photon, U.S. intelligence was 50 years ahead of their time as against their Soviet counterparts in intelligence gathering info and techniques, that we still can’t release these files. (We must also have some very old agents on payroll today).

        And yet, Numero Uno was still assassinated!

  3. Clarence Carlson says:

    This Black Ops radio presentation makes one of the clearest cases for the charge of obstruction of justice by the CIA I’ve seen. It is now clear that any government body seriously investigating the assassination will, in some form or fashion, meet with direct CIA interference.
    That alone speaks volumes.

  4. Alan Dale says:

    The identification of George Joannides as the CIA’s point of contact with the DRE is one of the major developments in these decades of incremental advancement from darkness to light. Another occurred on November 3rd, 1994 when Jeff Morley and Dr. John M. Newman interviewed a senior desk officer assigned to James Angleton named Jane Roman. During that interview Dr. Newman asked Ms. Roman about the significance of misleading information pertaining to Oswald being relayed from CIA HQS to Mexico City Station six weeks prior to the assassination. Ms. Roman replied,

    “Well, to me, it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on a need-to-know basis.”

    Six weeks before Dallas.

    My interview with Jefferson Morley may be heard here:

    • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

      Alan, lets finish connecting the dots……Joannides was funding the DRE (aka Cuban exiles). The two were connected, no question. The CIA gave false information to the Warren Commission implicating/framing Oswald as meeting with Russian agents of Dept. 13. That was the first attempt by the CIA to implicate Oswald…then comes Joannides buddies from the DRE. The DRE who go to Oswald and instigate a public scene for which Oswald is arrested and fined, and the DRE walked free, yes, the instigators walked free. DRE members then manipulate Oswald into the Radio talk show…which keeps him on the public mind. DRE is then the first group to implicate Oswald in a Conspiracy with Castro and Cuba. Most people would call this “Teamwork”….I’m not sure what the CIA would call it, probably “standard procedure”. No, no set up here, nope nothing to hide, just call Joannides “Snow White” and the DRE his 7 “Dwarves”. But this is when the CIA and Joannides really get busy, Tape recordings disappearing, controlling what the WC or HSCA is allowed to see. Joannides was a busy man.

  5. George Simmons says:

    The fact that the CIA put forward George Joannides as a point of contact to the HSCA without revealing his role in 1963 is proof that the CIA lied to and misled official investigations into the assassination.

    Why did they do it, and why are they still refusing to release certain files?
    There is obviously something they don’t want us to know.
    To use the national security argument after 50 years is stretching crediblity to breaking point. Thankfully, most can see through this and will continue to pursue the truth.

  6. Mike Rush says:

    On the Tom Hanks-produced two-hour program on JFK tonight on CNN:
    A stunning bit of film editing of Malcolm Kilduff’s announcement of Kennedy’s death omits the footage where Kilduff says he has just talked to Drs. Berkeley and Perry and that they told him the president died of a gunshot to the brain, at which point he puts his right index finger to his own right temple at the hairline to show where that bullet hit, according to the doctors. A shot from the front–how inconvenient to this film’s producers!

    • Chris Roberts says:

      Best to Ignore anything coming from MSM on 50th annivsary of JFK’S assassination.It’s all going to one long endorsment of Oswald did It.And eather ignore or attack anything else.

      Tom Hanks has shown he Is white and black hat view of history.People forget he did film making a hero out of texas congressman leading to funding of groups Ina fghanstain which direct lead to Al queda.

      I am disappointed In any so called liberal who took part In bringing Bill O’Reilly’s book Killing Kennedy to tv.

      The mSM Is completing ignoring Roger Stone’s new book.That’s the mindset of conservative corporate Mainstream Media.Give all attention to anyone who pushes the oswald did it alone theory but ignore anything that says conspiracy.You got more coverage of the Davinci Code when it was a book than you are getting of the man who killed Kennedy.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        That’s an excellent point about Stone’s new book. I’ve been looking for online reviews and the few I’ve found have all been on obscure websites, or just articles that briefly mention the book and the claims that Stone makes — and a lot of these articles are 5 or 6 months old. Now, I do not believe for a minute that Johnson knew anything about what was to happen in Dealey Plaza, for the simple reason that the crossfire that probably took place there made just being there a very dangerous place to be, and Johnson would have to have been either incredibly dumb or hopelessly crazy to expose himself to that kind of danger. Nonetheless, a man who was a rather important aide to several GOP presidents has just published a book in which he claims the 37th POTUS believed that the 36th POTUS was responsible for murdering the 35th POTUS. That’s news. Pretty big news. If it’s such a ridiculous idea, it should be easy enough to poke huge holes in it. Instead, they’re trying to kill it with silence. That hasn’t worked for 50 years, and I really don’t think it’s going to work now.

        • John Kirsch says:

          I think the key word in your comment is “believed,” as in Nixon believed LBJ was responsible for Kennedy’s death. Apparently Nixon never provided anything that even approached evidence to support the impression he apparently left that he “believed” LBJ was behind 11/22. Believing isn’t the same as knowing.

    • Photon says:

      Of course you neglect to mention that Kilduff always thought that Oswald was shooting at Connolly, not JFK.

  7. joe scrote says:

    George Joannides file release is a good start, but getting Dave Morales files I believe would have more important information.

  8. ralph harrison says:

    The evidence of a cover-up are overwhelming. The remaining files held by the National Archives must be released as the pressure from the public will continue to escalate as the 50th anniversaries of MLK and RFK approach.

  9. JuanV says:

    Joannides and Morales connection in assassination of RFK as well? Perhaps old news but search:

    Bill Lord’s letter to President Jimmy Carter re: JFK assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) plus George Herbert Walker Bush laughs in the American people’s and the world’s face concerning the LHO relation

  10. Larry Schnapf says:

    I challenge Photon to explain how if Oswald was not involved with intelligence that releasing files would somehow expose methods and sources that are still viable 50 years later? Really?

    How could “intelligence assets still alive would be harmed by release of some of these records to the detriment of national security” if Oswald was not associated with them?

    If true, the only reasonable explanation is that JFK was assassinated by “autonomous” cuban exiles who were supposed to be under Joannides’ supervision

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Sound analysis Larry.

      I will add that if Oswald WAS a subject of curiosity or interest to the CIA, who casually monitored him without taking him seriously as a potential threat to National Security or the POTUS, I doubt very much that they would need to lock up files to this day to protect dead CIA personnel who might have been careless or negligent.

      Frankly, there might be no negligence, but only if Oswald had bombed an FBI office.

      AFAIK, there was no advance threat to assassinate the President associated with Oswald.

      So why the secrecy if he wasn’t Agency?

  11. Craig R. says:

    Any documents which might help shed sunlight to JFK are long gone.

  12. Dave says:

    Dan, I assume you and Ed Lopez had to sign very restrictive confidentiality agreements with CIA to review their files on which your HSCA reports were based. From what you learned, and what went into your reports, can you both now speak freely without any reservation or limitations whatsoever? Have all your HSCA reports been released in un-redacted form (or if not, can you reconstruct any that were redacted or destroyed by CIA)? Or is CIA still to this day preventing you and Ed from disclosing certain details which you know for a fact would further advance the case for conspiracy?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more