Difference between revisions of "Document:October Surprise Memo"
m (Text replacement - " -- " to " — ") |
|||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
fall into three categories: | fall into three categories: | ||
| − | + | — material potentially relevant to the October Surprise | |
allegations. In this regard, Ed mentioned only a cable | allegations. In this regard, Ed mentioned only a cable | ||
from the Madrid embassy indicating that [[Bill Casey]] was | from the Madrid embassy indicating that [[Bill Casey]] was | ||
in town, for purposes unknown. | in town, for purposes unknown. | ||
| − | + | — [[Operation staunch]] material. | |
| − | + | — [[Israel]]i material. | |
Ed indicated that State was being careful to identify NSC | Ed indicated that State was being careful to identify NSC | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
With regard to process, Ed then made these points: | With regard to process, Ed then made these points: | ||
| − | + | — [[Secretary Baker]] intends to exercise decision authority | |
over privilege issues related to [[State Department]] | over privilege issues related to [[State Department]] | ||
documents. </poem>''' | documents. </poem>''' | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:33, 10 January 2023
| A "smoking gun" internal memo as regards the October Surprise; it references a meeting about how to keep the conspiracy hidden. In particular, it mentions a cable from the Madrid embassy confirming Bill Casey's presence there. |
memo by Paul Beach dated 4 November 1991Subjects: October Surprise
Source: Consortium News (Link)
Local copy: File:2007-0491-F,Folder1,Part5-b(dragged).pdf
★ Start a Discussion about this document
November 4, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
FROM: PAUL BEACH
SUBJECT: Meeting With Ed Williamson — October Surprise
I began the meeting by indicating that we were in the
process of considering what arrangements, if any, should be made
to ensure that we have an accountable focal point to keep the
President informed regarding issues and information of
significance as the October Surprise investigations request and
receive Executive Branch information. I noted that one option
would be to have a "lead agency" exercise this responsibility,
and another would be to have it performed centrally. I solicited
Ed's Views.
Ed responded first by describing State's document collection
efforts to date. He noted that document collection should be
completed by the end of this week, and that documents seem to
fall into three categories:
— material potentially relevant to the October Surprise
allegations. In this regard, Ed mentioned only a cable
from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was
in town, for purposes unknown.
— Operation staunch material.
— Israeli material.
Ed indicated that State was being careful to identify NSC
and interagency equities, and intended to coordinate directly
with the agencies concerned before producing such material. He
also indicated that State is notionally organizing its material
at three levels: materials which can be produced; materials which
will be shown only to members and staff, but not produced; and
materials which will be shown only to senior members. He did not
indicate that such a division was the product of any agreement
with the Hill.
With regard to process, Ed then made these points:
— Secretary Baker intends to exercise decision authority
over privilege issues related to State Department
documents.
