Mr. Jenner. Is that likewise true of page 24?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Mr. Jenner. At the bottom of page 24, the right-hand column you say:
“The first expedient was primarily defensive. In a hasty and thus far successful attempt to thwart an investigation by legally constituted authorities, the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security and the attorney general of the State of Texas, both of whom had already announced their determination to conduct an impartial inquiry, an illegal and unconstitutional ‘special commission’ was improvised with the obvious hope that it could be turned into a Soviet-style Kangaroo court. The best known members of this packed ‘commission’,” and then you give some vignettes of the various members of the commission.
I am not seeking to probe into your thinking on the subject. You have a right to think whatever you do think, and the right of free speech and publication permits you to publish. As I told Mr. Unger yesterday I was seeking only sources.
What is the source of that statement?
Mr. Unger. Pardon me, just a minute for interjecting but what relevancy does that have on the inquiry into the death of either President Kennedy or——
Mr. Jenner. It has this relevancy. The doctor is implying in the statement I have quoted that the creation of the Commission was part of a conspiracy, as he puts it, to prevent effective investigation into the assassination of the President by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security and the attorney general of the State of Texas, with the appointment of a commission.
Mr. Oliver. Let me confer for just a second.
(Conferring with counsel.)