In the aftermath of public outcry following major assassinations, tensions grew between government agencies and those trying to uncover the truth.
A once-confidential memo from 1977, now declassified, reveals the CIA’s mounting frustration with the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)-specifically over how the agency was being portrayed and the treatment its personnel received.
This internal communication shows not only bureaucratic defensiveness but also the stakes involved when one arm of the government scrutinizes another.
"We should not permit our people to be mistreated or misrepresented without response."
🕵️♂️ Uncooperative or Overreaching?
The CIA memo details grievances against the HSCA, citing repeated incidents of:
- HSCA staff misrepresenting facts
- Public criticism of CIA procedures without consultation
- Complaints that CIA personnel were subjected to "arrogant and abusive treatment" by investigators
The agency believed the committee’s investigators were unfairly biased and eager to score political points-rather than objectively investigate the Kennedy and King assassinations.
The agency recommended firm pushback.
⚖️ Calls for a More Aggressive Response
The author urges top CIA leadership to reconsider their overly passive stance.
The memo argues that continued silence was emboldening the committee.
Instead, it recommends the agency:
- Lodge a formal protest with HSCA leadership
- Push for a more balanced investigative tone
- Reassert the agency’s institutional rights and credibility
This moment reveals the internal strain of being investigated while trying to defend national security reputations.
"We have endured and cooperated, but the line must be drawn."
🧾 Behind the Curtain of Investigation Politics
The HSCA was tasked with determining if there was a conspiracy in the assassinations of JFK and MLK. To do so, it needed cooperation from intelligence agencies-especially the CIA.
But this document paints a portrait of breakdown.
The Committee and the Agency weren’t working together-they were engaged in a silent war of mistrust.
This conflict over access, tone, and respect shows how difficult it is to uncover hidden truths when transparency threatens institutional legacies.
