Secretary Rusk. That was the view which we took at the time in consultation with the investigative agencies. We did not then have evidence of that sort nor do we now, and the implications of suggesting evidence in the absence of evidence would have been enormous.
Representative Ford. I don't understand that.
Secretary Rusk. Well, for us to leave the impression that we had evidence that we could not describe or discuss, when in fact we didn't have the evidence on a matter of such overriding importance could have created a very dangerous situation in terms of——
Representative Ford. Wouldn't it have been just as effective to say no comment?
Secretary Rusk. Well, unfortunately, under the practices of the press, no comment would have been taken to confirm that there was evidence. I mean, that would have been the interpretation that many would have put upon no comment.
But, Mr. Ford, I think the key thing is that at the time that statement was made we did not have such evidence. I mean, this was a factual statement at that time.
Representative Ford. But, at that time, this was 2 days after the assassination, you really didn't have much time to evaluate all of the evidence.
Secretary Rusk. Well, that is correct. But if the evidence or the known facts had changed certainly that type of statement would have changed.
In other words, such statements are based upon the situation as known at the time the statements are made.
Representative Ford. This statement then appeared in the Sunday morning, November 24 issue or edition of the Washington Post. That was a statement issued certainly on the 23d of November because it had to be in order to get in the Sunday edition of the Post. So, that is 24 hours after the assassination.