Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 87]
# MemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. Adams DATE: 5/6/75FROM: Legal CounselSUBJECT: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESFrom 10:30 a. m. until 2:45 p. m. on May 6, 1975,Inspector John B. Hotis and I met with Frederick Schwarz, GeneralCounsel to the Senate Select Committee, Committee staffers Burt Wides,Pat Shea and Mike Madigan, and CIA representatives Marvin Smith andWalter Lloyd.I arranged to attend this conference in an effort to resolve withthe Committee staff the procedures that would be followed during interviewsof current and former FBI employees by staff representatives. Interviewshave been conducted in the recent past by representatives of the Committee,and in the absence of any general understanding as to the procedures wehave been advising those persons coming to our attention as prospectivewitnesses that they may request the presence of a Bureau representativeduring the interview. Committee staff members have objected to thepresence of Bureau representatives and have insisted that the interviewsproceed in the absence of any agency representative.At the outset of the meeting today, it became clear that Schwarz,speaking for the members of the Senate Select Committee and for the staff,was opposed to the presence of agency representatives during interviewsconcerning matters which they described as "abuses." Schwarz explainedthat the Committee has a responsibility to look into allegations of misconductor abuse in addition to a broader study of the jurisdiction and operationsof the intelligence community. He said that while there would be a willingnesson their part to have agency representatives present during interviews concern-ing general inquiries regarding jurisdiction, they felt that it would beimproper and would interfere with the integrity of their investigation if third parties were present during interviews concerning misconduct.1 - Mr. Wannall1 - Mr. Hotis1 - Mr. Mintz
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 88]
Memorandum to MrAdamsRe: Senate Select Committee, etc.Schwarz offered as an alternative that the agencies would be advised of the identity of persons to be interviewed and that prior to the interview the agency would contact the witness to explain the authority, the security arrangements made by the Committee for the protection of information, to authorize the witness to answer questions where the witness was bound by a secrecy agreement, and to caution the witness concerning matters of a sensitive nature which should be deferred for discussion with members of the Committee or with the Chairman of the Committee.I pointed out to Schwarz that unless the FBI was given notice as to the specific subject matter of the interview to be conducted, we would find it most difficult to intelligently assess the sensitivity of the information that might be furnished by the witness. The CIA representatives expressed great alarm that an interview could disclose information without some prior assessment of the potential damage to intelligence collection techniques and sources.As to these points, Schwarz stated that he would discuss with the members of the Committee a revision of their initial proposal that would include notice to the agency of the identity of a person to be interviewed plus a generic description of the subject matter of the interview followed by a contact by the agency with the prospective witness to assess the sensitivity of the information and to advise the witness of areas of inquiry that must be deferred for special handling by designated members of the Committee or of the Committee staff. Following that contact the Committee representative would proceed to conduct the interview with the understanding that the agency representative would be near-by and immediately available for consultation should the witness have concern as to the degree of sensitivity of information he was being asked to furnish. At the conclusion of the interview, the Committee would make available to the agency a summary of the notes taken during the interview but a transcription of the interview would not be made available either to the agency or to the witness interviewed.Schwarz stipulated that there may be occasions when the Committee would reserve its right to interview an individual, whether a current employee or a former employee, in secret in order to protect the interview or to insure the completeness and accuracy of his information. I asked Burt Wides whether they had any basis for that concern and he indicated that they did have such a basis, but declined to specify the details.- 2 -CONTINUED - OVERNW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 89
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 89]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select CommitteeInspector Hotis asked whether the on-going interviews would be delayed pending resolution of the differences concerning procedures. Schwarz replied that the interviews will proceed due to time factors. I then requested Schwarz to expedite his discussion with the members of the Committee, to state their proposals in writing in order that we could review them in specific detail, and to let me know as somas their proposal as approved by the Committee was available for discussion. He agreed to do so and said that probably this could be accomplished by Thursday, May 8, 1975.## OPINIONIt was my impression in dealing with Schwarz that he is making an honest effort to conduct the Committee inquiry reasonably and that he is concerned about the public acceptance of the Committee's final product. His concerns about the integrity of the investigation are similar to those that Ewould express about an FBI investigation. His insistence that interviews of individuals concerning possible misconduct be done alone with the witness appear to me to be reasonable to insure the integrity of their investigation. The compromise we discussed (they would identify the witnesses to us prior to interview and tell us the proposed subject matter of the interview and allow us to consult with the witness prior to interview) seems to be a practical solution to our mutual problem. This solution is not as acceptable to CIA due to their greater need for protection of their covert operations, sources and methods. The Committee has available to it the subpoena power, the authority to conduct public hearings, and a good deal of support by public opinion. Therefore, I conclude that the Committee is likely to discover the full details of events concerning which they inquire whether the FBI cooperates or appears to be reluctant. As to those areas of legitimate concern because of their sensitivity in terms of production of informants or sources and methods of gathering national security intelligence, the Bureau can properly expect an opportunity to provide protection for the information.If the procedures suggested above are operated in good faith on both sides, the Bureau would be given notice as to the subject matter to be discussed prior to the interview and research could disclose the areas of sensitivity and appropriate action taken to caution the witness against disclosure of such information.- 3 -CONTINUED - OVERNW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 90
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 90]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select CommitteeRECOMMENDATIONS:1.  That until procedures are established with the Committee the Bureau continue its present practice of advising prospective witnesses upon their request that they have a right to consult with a Bureau representative during interview.2.  That further discussions of this matter with the Committee await the receipt of their proposed guidelines in writing after approval by members of the Senate Select Committee.- 4 -  NW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 91
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 91]
# MemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM: Legal CounselSUBJECT: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCEDATE: 5/5/75This morning the Director asked me to inquire into the status of our understanding with the Senate Select Committee as to whether FBI representatives would or would not be present at interviews of former Bureau employees or current Bureau employees. The Director was concerned that the presence of a Bureau representative could be criticized as an attempt to interfere with the Committee's inquiries. I assured the Director that the purpose of such representatives being present was to assist the interviewer and the witness in determining areas of inquiry of particular sensitivity or that might concern a current Bureau operation. The Director agreed that such was an appropriate reason for the presence of a Bureau representative and asked me to consider preparing a letter addressed to Senator Church stating our desire to make available a Bureau representative and the reasons for the presence of such a Bureau representative.As a result of a conference with representatives of CIA, Roderick Hills of the White House Counsel staff, and others, it was determined that Walter Lloyd of the CIA Legal Staff would continue negotiations with the Committee in behalf of the entire intelligence community to develop procedures concerning the interview of witnesses and the presence of agency representatives at such interviews. Mr. Lloyd was scheduled to meet with Frederick Schwarz, Counsel to the Committee, on Tuesday, May 6, 1975, to discuss such arrangements.I scheduled an appointment with the Deputy Attorney General and met with him at 5:00 p.m. on May 5, 1975, accompanied by Inspector John B. Hotis. I told the Deputy of our concern that the interviews by the Senate Committee are continuing even though no understanding has been reached by the Committee and the intelligence community. I told the Deputy that the Director would like to have some1 - Mr. Wannall1 - Mr. Hotis1 - Mr. MintzJAM:mfd (5)CONTINUED - OVER
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 92]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activitiesformal formal understanding with Senator Church as to the Bureau's position in regard to such interviews. I reminded the Deputy that our sole concern was to make a representative available to assist in the interviews in the event they touched upon sensitive areas and by no means was our interest to be understood to be an effort to interfere with the Senate Committee's inquiries.The Deputy said he fully understood our position and agreed. He asked me whether I would be willing to agree to hold off on formal notification to Senator Church until the negotiations to be conducted by Mr. Lloydc could be concluded. I told the Deputy I would agree to that on the condition that I and also Inspector Hotis would participate in the discussions by Lloyd with the Committee representatives. The Deputy Attorney General said that he fully concurred in my condition and if there developed any difficulty in making such arrangements, he would assist lin seeing that it was accomplished.Inspector Hotis advised that Schwarz, the Committee counsel, has arranged a meeting on Wednesday morning, May 7, 1975, with Assistant Attorney General Scalia of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department. We will also be represented at that meeting.The Deputy Attorney General told me that he had been advised by Schwarz that a former Bureau Agent, Leo Clark, had objected to the fact that a Bureau representative had contacted him and had indicated a willingness to be present during Clark's interview by the Committee. I again assured the Deputy that our sole purpose in contacting Clark was to be available in the event a Bureau representative was needed to discuss matters of a sensitive nature or matters concerning current Bureau operations. The Deputy said he understood and Clark's complaint was likely the result of a misunderstanding.RECOMMENDATION:For information.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 93]
2 - Mr. S. F. PhillipsMay 14, 1975MATERIAL FOR SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE (SSC)INVESTIGATING INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES1. TITLE/SUBJECT: Legal Authorities of the FBI2. ORIGINATING ORGANIZATION: FBI3. NATURE OF MATERIAL: Letterhead memorandum (LHM) with enclosures described below.4. DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified5. NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION STAMP: NA6. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS:In response to a request from the SSC for certain documents and other information, an LHM was submitted as a cover communication to furnish the SSC copies of the following documents.1.  An internal FBI memorandum dated 5/16/72 captioned "FBI Jurisdiction; Criminal Intelligence Information."2.  An internal FBI memorandum dated 5/18/72 captioned "FBI Authority in Domestic Intelligence Matters."3.  A study on subversion prepared for former Acting FBI Director Louis Patrick Gray III dated 5/19/72.4.  A memorandum from the Director of the FBI to the Attorney General dated 8/7/73 recommending the issuance of an Executive Order concerning the conduct of domestic intelligence investigations.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 94]
7. REQUESTER/DATE OF REQUEST: SSC. 3/19/758. RELEASING AUTHORITY: FBI9. DATE OF SUBMISSION: 4/22/7510. LOCATION OF FILE COPY: FBI file 62-116395-8311. RELATION TO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PROBLEMS: None.NOTE: Original via liaison to Central Community Index in connection with Senstudy 75.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 95]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM: Legal CounselDATE: 5/7/75SUBJECT: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCEAt 5:05 p.m. on May 6, 1975, I went to the White House to meet with Mr. Philip Buchen, Counsel to the President; Roderick Hills, Associate Counsel; James Wilderotter, Assistant Counsel; Assistant Attorney General Scalia, Office of Legal Counsel in the Department; John Clark, Associate to the Director of CIA; Walter Lloyd and Marvin Smith of CIA. The meeting was called by Mr. Buchen to discuss the developments that day with regard to the proposal that agency representatives would be present during interviews conducted by investigators of the Senate Select Committee staff.At a meeting held earlier that day, the General Counsel of the Senate Select Committee had indicated that the Committee disapproved of the presence of agency representatives at interviews concerning alleged "abuses." I explained to Mr. Buchen the alternative proposal offered by F.A.O. Schwarz to the effect that agencies would be furnished the identities of proposed witnesses, the subject matter of the proposed interviews, and permitted an opportunity to review the subject matter and consult with the witness to advise him of sensitive areas that would require special treatment. John Clark agreed that in regard to interviews concerning abuses, it would seem to be necessary for the Committee to proceed with the interview without an agency representative present. After general discussion of the proposal by Schwarz, the meeting concluded with instructions by Mr. Buchen to Wilderotter to draft a statement that might be incorporated into a letter to be addressed to the Committee explaining the Administration's position.The elements of the proposal would be that as a general rule, agency representatives would be present during interviews concerning matters that were not categorized as abuses and in those exceptional cases1 - Mr. Wannall1 - Mr. Hotis1 - Mr. MintzJAM:mfd (5)
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 96]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select Committee on Intelligencewhere abuses would be the subject of interviews, the agencies would be given prior notice of the identities of the witnesses and of the subject matter of the interview, plus an opportunity to consult with the witness prior to the interview. Mr. Buchen also asked that the Committee be requested to provide a letter in each instance identifying the alleged abuse as the subject of the interview and indicating Committee approval of that inquiry. The objective of such a requirement would be to clearly identify those interviews characterized as "abuses" interviews which would require the absence of an agency representative during the actual interview.I was also asked to contact Schwarz to insure that he would not present to the Committee his counterproposal during the regular committee meeting on Wednesday, May 7, 1975. The purpose of such a request was to avoid the Committee adopting a final proposal regarding interviews prior to the Executive having an opportunity to express its position.On the morning of May 7, 1975, we spoke with Schwarz, requested him to refrain from offering his counterproposals to the Committee for approval, and in response to his request explained to him that the reason was that the proposals were under discussion and it was necessary for all agencies in the intelligence community to be involved in the determination whether the alternative procedures would be acceptable. Mr. Schwarz agreed to refrain from offering his counterproposals to the Committee today.At approximately 10:25a.m. on May 7th, I called Wilderotter and asked what the progress of his preparation of the proposed letter was. He told me that there would be no letter addressed to the Committee because the White House did not desire to escalate this matter and go over the head of the Committee counsel. I told him that the was extremely concerned at the inaction which has resulted thus far in FBI being in an indefensible position in regard to interviews of former employees. I explained to him that the Committee has not advised us of the interviews that have been conducted and we have learned of them only by calls from the witnesses. I told him that the interviews are still continuing because at the meeting on May 6, 1975, we expressly requested the Committee counsel to dis- continue the interviews temporarily until guidelines could be established and the Committee/expressly refused to do so.counselI told Wilderotter that this morning I received a call from John P. Mohr, former Assistant to the Director, who has broad knowledge- 2 -CONTINUED - OVER
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 97]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select Committee on Intelligenceof FBI matters, in which Mohr told me that he has been called to be interviewedat 10:00 a. m. on Friday, May 9, 1975, at Room G-308 in the New SenateOffice Building. Mark Gittenstein was identified as the interviewer.I told Wilderotter this concerned me because we have no basis on whichto advise Mr. Mohr as to the appropriate guidelines that may be followedduring the course of such an interview and in the absence of knowledge ofthe subject matter of the interview we have no way of counseling him as tosensitive areas that should be deferred for discussion with members ofthe Committee or with the Chairman of the Committee.Wilderotter said he understood myy concern but he saw no wayin which the matter could be resolved in time for guidelines to beestablished for the Mohr interview. He told me he would work on thepreparation of a position paper to be used by the White House and theintelligence community to establish a policy that could be discussed withthe Committee.Inspector Hotis and I then at approximately 11:10 a.m. wentto a conference already in session in the office of Assistant Attorney GeneralScalia attended by representatives of the CIA, Department of Defense,NSA, Department of State and the Department of the Treasury. The otheragencies were advised of the results of the meeting with the Senate SelectCommittee staff on May 6, 1975, and a general discussion ensued as tothe willingness of the agencies to agree to interviews in the absence ofagency representatives. The representatives of the State Department,Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Jennings, indicated that State was adamant thatinterviews would not be conducted in the absence of representatives.I spoke privately with Assistant Attorney General Scalia andadvised him of my conversation with Wilderotter and of the fact thatJohn Mohr had been called for interview on Friday, May 9, 1975. Itold him of my great concern that Mohr's interview would be sensitivebecause of his broad knowledge of the Bureau and told him that it wasessential that appropriate guidelines be developed concerning such inter-views as soon as possible. Scalia told me that he had just finishedspeaking with Wilderotter and he ashared my concern. He thencalled Wilderotter and subsequently advised me that Wilderotter saidthat he, Wilderotter, would immediately contact Schwarz to request atpostponement of the interview of John Mohr pending the establishmentof guidelines. In the event he would be unsuccessful, Roderick Hills andPhilip Buchen would discuss the matter with Senator Church and Senator Tower.- 3 -CONTINUED - OVERNW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 98
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 98]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select Committee on IntelligenceThere was a general consensus of opinion at the meeting with the other agencies of agreeing that they would await the development of the position paper by Wilderotter. Walter Lloyd advised that another meeting with Schwarz and the Committee staff would be scheduled for Thursday, May 8, 1975.Upon my return to my office, Wilderotter called me to report that he had been unsuccessful in having the Mohr interview postponed and further that Schwarz had advised him that he now feels that it would be inappropriate for agency representatives to be present at any interviews whether they concerned abuse or whether they concerned general matters, and further that he felt that it would be inappropriate for the agency to be advised of the subject matter prior to the interview.At that point, Mark Gittenstein joined the conversation with Schwarz & Wilderotter and advised Wilderotter that he intended to interview Mohr concerning "procedures and how paper moved in the Hoover days," and this would constitute 90% of the interview. The remaining 10% of the interview would concern Hoover's "O.C. Files." Further Gittenstein mentioned that he was aware that John Mohr is the Executor of Mr. Tolson's estate and he may inquire concerning that matter.Wilderotter said that there would be no further contact with the Committee concerning the Mohr interview and that we should assume the Mohr interview will proceed as scheduled. He said that he would suggest the Bureau contact Gittenstein to discuss any further details regarding the subject matter of the interview of Mohr and that we consider discussing with Mohr prior to the interview matters that he should not discuss with Gittenstein. He also suggested that we debrief Mr. Mohr at the completion of the interview.I reminded Mr. Wilderotter that there are no guidelines by which the White House or the intelligence community or the Senate Committee have agreed that the FBI should make such arrangements with the witness. I told him that I thought that the FBI would be used as a test case both by the Committee and by the intelligence community if we undertook to negotiate such matters directly with Gittenstein. I told him that I thought that such direct negotiations would undermine the effectiveness of current- 4 - CONTINUED - OVERNW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 99