Robert Reynolds on Accusations the CIA Tried to Obstruct the Release of Records
- Fred Litwin
- Sep 3
- 5 min read
Robert Reynolds is THE expert on the JFK assassination records collection, and his latest article on his terrific blog debunks the notion that the CIA tried to do an end-run around the ARRB.
The hidden pocket that can and should be investigated going forward is the conduct of and obstruction by the National Archives with respect to JFK assassination records. On May 20, we heard Judge John Tunheim testify that the Assassination Records and Review Board (ARRB) never saw or had the opportunity to review many assassination records that were supposed to be at the National Archives for ARRB review and declassification decisions. Judge Tunheim also confirmed what he perceived to be the plan of agencies to “wait out” the ARRB, and then selectively turn over assassination records to the National Archives “at a later time.” As you are probably aware, these acts of obstruction of the ARRB mandate are and were a direct and flagrant violation of the JFK Act, and it is the chief reason why there is still not a complete and reliable collection of assassination records, despite President Trump’s recent Executive Order dated January 23, 2025.
Reynolds finds six flaws in Adamczyk's argument.
First, his claim suffers from weak documentation and poor research.
The HSCA-CIA Segregated Collection constitutes the bulk of CIA records in the ARC. There is thus a huge amount of information on the handling of these records in the ARC itself. Beyond ARC records, there were also multiple Congressional hearings and extensive testimony on the Act, and the status of the records at the agencies and at NARA both before and after the passage of the Act.
Yet the only ARC record, in fact the only document, that Adamczyk cites to support his theory is the survey memo.
Second, Adamczyk makes illogical assumptions.
Bibliographic confusion is a minor problem compared to the basic illogic of Adamczyk’s theory, which takes the standard complaint about access to CIA records and turns it on its head. The standard complaint is that CIA refuses to transfer its records outside their own storage vaults, keeping them out of the hands of researchers. When laws are passed or regulatory deadlines are set to make records more accessible, CIA delays for years, decades.
Adamczyk, however, believes the CIA transferred documents ahead of schedule, and placed them in the non-CIA vaults of the National Archives, a place where CIA had carefully avoided storing its classified records in the past. It does this in order to somehow HIDE them.
Third, his account of the JFK Records Act is flawed.
The ARRB Final Report gives a brief survey of the legislative history of the JFK Act. The first proposals in Congress for record releases came in January. They did not spell out either the records to be released or the mechanisms for releasing them. Support built for a broad and systematic release throughout February, and the Act was introduced as a joint House-Senate resolution by Representative Louis Stokes and Senator David Boren on March 26.
There was NO legislative proposal for an ARRB and for record by record review and release prior to this. Clearly Adamczyk did not bother to do any research at all on the history of the JFK Act. instead, he simply regards CIA and McDonald as clairvoyant. Clairvoyance is a common feature of conspiracy theories, with the conspirators KNOWING how events will take place long before they happen. This is an obvious flaw in Adamczyk’s claim.
Fourth, Adamczyk ignores CIA decisions on the segregated collection of documents.
McDonald recommended that CIA transfer the Segregated Collection to NARA. He gives a number of reasons for this, which Adamczyk describes in HIGHLY selective and tendentious terms. Whatever the reason for it, this was still only a recommendation from McDonald. Did Gates accept the recommendation? Adamczyk says nothing about this. He theorizes that NARA reached some sort of agreement with CIA to accept the HSCA records in a manner inconsistent with the JFK Act, so it seems he believes Gates DID accept McDonald’s recommendation, which was intended to defeat the Act.
If one looks at the documentation available, however, it is clear Gates did NOT accept McDonald’s recommendation. Instead, in a public speech on February 21, Gates announced that he was “transferring custody of all documents CIA possesses relating to the assassination of President Kennedy to the Historical Review Program.” (See ARC 104-10427-10000).
Fifth, there is no point to his theory.
Logic and history aside, Adamczyk’s theory has another problem. He believes that “a massive trove of CIA assassination records from its HSCA collection was shipped to the National Archives before the ARRB could start its work. Assuming that is true, these records were not assigned Record Identification Form (RIF) numbers and properly catalogued for mandatory ARRB review.”
Forget about WHEN the records were transferred. Assume that some records were not assigned RIF numbers. Assume that some records were not reviewed by the ARRB. What was the point of arranging this? If this “strategy” has any purpose, it is to conceal information the CIA does not wish to release. Concealing the information means concealing the records. So how were the records concealed?
Sixth, Adamczyk's account of what happened is just not true.
We can be sure, however, that in at least one case which matches Adamczyk’s hypothesis, NONE of these things happened. This is the case of the Oswald 201 file. Work on declassifying this file began early in 1992. When Gates addressed Senate and House committees on the JFK Act in May 1992, he presented the “pre-assassination” version of the file as an earnest of his intentions to open CIA records. Work on the Oswald 201 file continued after the release of pre-assassination records, and by September 1992 the first half of the 201 file was transferred to NARA.
These records were NOT released in full, and they were released PRIOR to the signing of the JFK Act. Did this early transfer, lacking RIF sheets, interfere with the ARRB review of these records? It did not. The ARRB requested and received RIFfed versions of the records, reviewed them, and opened most of the redactions. ALL of these records are available today at NARA, all open in full.
I've just given you a taste of what Robert has written.
Please read his entire article. He's the real expert on the files. And check his blog regularly for important updates.
Previous Relevant Blog Posts about Robert Reynolds
A Case Study in Redaction: The CIA's LIFEAT File
Robert Reynolds debunks a Jefferson Morley allegation.
A panel discussion with Robert Reynolds, Gus Russo, Larry Haapanen, Mark Allen, and Steve Roe.
Robert's second appearance on my podcast.
Robert explains CIA redactions.
The release of the redactions told us little about the JFK assassination.
Anybody expecting massive disclosures about the JFK assassination in the release of documents will be disappointed.
Robert Reynolds determined that it was the Department of State and not the CIA that wanted this memo redacted.
My first podcast with Robert.
Robert replies to Douthit's criticism of our podcast.
