Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 75]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsDATE: 6-4-75FROM: Legal CounselSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 75ALL INFORMATION CONTAINEDHEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIEDDATEAssoc. Dir.Dep. AD Adm.Dep. ADInv.Asst. Dir.:Admin.Comp. Syst.Ext. AffairsFiles & Com.Gen. Inv.Ident.InspectionLaboratoryLegal Coun.Plan & Eval.Spec. Inv.TrainingTelephone Rm.Director Sec'yThe purpose of this memorandum is to advise that a representative of captioned Committee has advised that if the Bureau's response to a Committee request concerning the Democratic Convention in Atlantic City in 1964 is sufficiently informative it may not be necessary to interview Bureau personnel concerning this matter and to recommend that an expeditious effort be made to furnish a summary concerning the Atlantic City investigation be made available along with certain documents concerning this matter.By way of background, we have received a request dated 5-14-75 pertaining to many items, among which was information concerning the Bureau's activities in Atlantic City in 1964 at the Democratic National Convention. At a meeting on 5-30-75 it was pointed out to the Committee that certain aspects of their May 14, 1975, request were particularly burdensome, would in some instances invade privacy and for other reasons was most difficult. During this meeting which was attended by Mark Gitenstein, staff member of the Committee; John Elliff, Task Force Director; representatives of the Bureau; and K. William O'Conner, Special Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General for Intelligence Coordination, the Committee representatives indicated that subject to the Senate Committee's approval they would accept some sort of summary with regard to their request in Appendix D, Item 8 of the May 14, 1975, request. This item pertains to the Bureau's activities in Atlantic City.We have had former Agents interviewed concerning this matter, a request has been made to interview two Bureau secretaries, and the Committee has indicated they intend to interview as many as five additional Bureau Agents concerning this matter. In conversation with K. William O'Conner, he mentioned that the Committee had specifically informed him that if the Bureau's response was informative enough concerning62-1163951 - Mr. Wannall1 - Mr. Cregar1 - Mr. Mintz62-116395-0201 - Mr. Hotis1 - Mr. DalyCONTINUED - OVERNW 88296-DocId:32989588 Page 76Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 76]
Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams MemoRE: SENSTUDY 75the Atlantic City matter, they would not interview the two Bureausecretaries, Mary Ann Massa and M. Ann Mierzejewski. (The requestconcerning the interview of these Bureau employees, who are NewarkOffice employees, is the subject of a separate memorandum captionedand dated same.) He requested SA Paul V. Daly to contact MarkGitenstein in an effort to determine what type of response the Committeeexpected concerning the Atlantic City incident.-On 6-4-75, SA Daly contacted Mr. Gitenstein and Mr. Gitensteinadvised that the Committee knew of the existence of certain memorandaand in particular a memorandum from former Assistant to the DirectorC. D. DeLoach reporting a conversation with the President requesting Bureaucoverage at the Convention. Gitenstein stated that with regard to theAtlantic City incident, if a summary was prepared concerning this incidentwhich would in general show the types of people whose conversations weremonitored, the type of information collected, and the type of informationdisseminated along with furnishing the Committee certain important documentsthat it would not be necessary to interview Bureau personnel. He indicatedamong the documents they would expect to be furnished would be the DeLoachmemorandum along with other "benign" documents which would not involve aprivacy consideration or other considerations which might preclude theirbeing made available to the Committee. Gitenstein indicated that it is theCommittee's feeling that information of a political nature such as thecredentials argument at the Convention was collected and furnished to theWhite House and that the collection and dissemination of this information isnot apparently in concert with the ostensive purpose of electronic surveillance.He felt that the summary need not and should not identify individuals monitoredbut rather describe them such as a senator or some other descriptive phraseto describe the individual whose conversation might have been monitored.He said as to the verification of the information contained in the summarywith the information in the files, that subject will be addressed by theCommittee at a later time.Gitenstein again mentioned that if such information wasfurnished by the Bureau, their need to interview employees would be mutedas what they are attempting to learn through interview of Agents involvedwould have already been furnished by the Bureau. He volunteered that theCommittee is relatively well informed concerning this particular matter.It is obvious from the specific mention of the DeLoach memorandum alongwith other observations and statements he made that this could well be true.- 2 - CONTINUED - OVERNW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 77
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 77]
Legal Counsel to Mr. J. B. Adams MemoRE: SENSTUDY 75It is realized that the White House has requested that a paper be prepared which would include the Atlantic City incident; however, K. William O'Connor indicated that he had conversed with Mr. James Wilderotter, assistant to the Counsel to the President, and that Wilderotter had advised that document requests pertaining to Atlantic City or any other topic which will be addressed in a paper should be responded to and response should not be delayed.It would appear to be advantageous to the Bureau to attempt to comply with the summary request along with furnishing certain documents concerning Atlantic City on an expeditious basis as opposed to the Committee continuing to conduct interviews of current and former Bureau personnel. If this type of arrangement can be worked out in this particular incident which the Committee characterizes as an abuse, it might lend itself to a similar arrangement in other areas.RECOMMENDATION:That the Intelligence Division expeditiously prepare a summary in line with the above concerning the Atlantic City incident along with furnishing the important documents concerning this incident.> [Figure: Signatures and handwritten notes]- 3 -NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 78
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 78]
NR 007 SF CODE5:13 PM NITEL, 5/14/75 MCCTO DIRECTOR (62-118395)FROM SAN FRANCISCOATTN LEGAL COUNSELSENSTUDY 75RE BUREAU TELETYPE TO ALL OFFICES DATED MAY 2, 1975, ABOVECAPTION.ON MAY 14, 1975, LESTER B. SEIDEL, INVESTIGATOR, SENATESELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE A ACTIVITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.,TELEPHONICALLY CONTACTED THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE AND REQUESTEDTHE IDENTITY OF THE SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE SAN FRANCISCOOFFICE IN 1970. HE WAS ADVISED THAT SPECIAL. AGENT IN CHARGECHARLES WA BATES SERVED IN THAT CAPACITY FROM JANUARY, 1970,THROUGH APRIL, 1970; THAT FORMER SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE HARRY J..MORGAN (NOW RETIRED) SERVED FROM APRIL, 1970, THROUGH SEPTEMBER,1970; AND THAT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ROBERT E GEBHARDT SERVED AS !SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE FROM SEPTEMBER, 1970, THROUGH NOVEMBER,1972.SEIDEL DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF HIS INQUIRYOTHER THAT IT WAS CONNECTED WITH THE COMMITTEE WITH WHICH HE IS 2AFFILIATED.ABOVE BEING FURNISHED FOR INFORMATION OF BUREAU.ENDHOLDCC Doll
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 79]
1 - M J. B. Adams1 - T. J. Jenkins1 - Each Assistant DirectorCODETELETYPETO ALL SACSFROM DIRECTOR FBI (62-116395)SENSTUDY - 75.REBUTEL MAY 2, 1975.MAY 19, 1975PERSONAL ATTENTION1 - Mr. W. O. Cregar1 - Mr. S. F. PhillipsIN CONNECTION WITH WORK OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE SELECTCOMMITTEES, ITS REPRESENTATIVES MAY CONTACT YOUR OFFICE FORINFORMATION.IN ONE RECENT INSTANCE, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SENATESELECT COMMITTEE TELEPHONICALLY INQUIRED AS TO IDENTITY OF SACIN A PARTICULAR OFFICE DURING 1970.IN HANDLING SUCH INQUIRIES INSURE ESTABLISHING BONA FIDESOF REPRESENTATIVE BY SHOW OF CREDENTIALS ON PERSONAL CONTACT OR,IF TELEPHONIC CONTACT, BY TELEPHONING BACK TO COMMITTEE.UNLESS INFORMATION IS OF A PUBLIC NATURE, AS IN THE INSTANCECITED ABOVE, OBTAIN FBIHQ CLEARANCE PRIOR TO SUPPLYING ANYINFORMATION. FBIHQ MUST BE EXPEDITIOUSLY ADVISED OF ALLINFORMATION FURNISHED.SFP:cmc (19)NOTE:Referenced teletype alerted field to work of theSenate and House Select Committees and Bureau's handling ofits requests. Also, it pointed out FBI has pledged full coop-eration with Committees. San Francisco teletype 5/14/75 advisedthat on that day Lester B. Seidel, Investigator, Senate SelectCommittee, telephonically sought and was furnished identitiesof SACs in San Francisco in 1970. Seidel did not indicatespecific nature of his inquiries. Considering the publicitybeing afforded the work of the Committee, it is not inconceivablesome unauthorized persons may attempt to obtain information fromthe FBI particularly at field level, under guise of one of theCommittees, It is therefore believed this teletype to all SACSis desirable as a cautionary measure.
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 80]
# LEGAL DIVISIONAttached teletype advises former Agent Richard H. Davis, Atlanta Office, had been contacted by Senate Select Committee (SSC) Staff Member (FNU) Epstein in an attempt by Epstein to arrange an interview concerning Bureau investigation of Martin Luther King. On the night of 6-4-75, Michael Epstein, Staff Member SSC advised SA Paul V. Daly that he had contacted former Agent Davis to arrange interview concerning Bureau investigation of Martin Luther King, Stanley David Levison,, and Southern Leadership Christian Conference (SLCC).Epstein stated Davis refused to submit to interview since he was bound by an employment secrecy agreement and needed necessary clearance from Bureau. He told Epstein that he would not contact Bureau for such clearance. Epstein requested Bureau release Davis from the agreement for purposes of this interview which will be a staff interview in Atlanta.Legal Division recommends Davis be released from security agreement for purposes of this interview and to answer questions concerning the King, Levison, and SLCC investigations. If approved, we will separately advise Davis through Atlanta Office of this decision, and give him pertinent briefing.1 - Intelligence Division1 - Administrative Division1 - Legal Counsel Division1 - Mr. Daly
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 81]
NR Ø25 AT CODED8:08 PM NITEL JUNE 4, 1975 JWSTO: DIRECTOR, FBI (62-116395)FROM: ATLANTA (62-2854)ATTN: INTD W. D. CREGARSENSTUDY '75ON 6/4/75, FORMER AGENT RICHARD H. DAVIS, 1147 WILD CREEKTRAIL, N. E., ATLANTA, GA., ADVISED HE WAS CONTACTED THIS DATEBY (FNU) EPSTEIN WHOM HE BELIEVED WAS CALLING FROM WASHINGTON,D. C. DAVIS STATED HE FEELS EPSTEIN IS A MEMBER OF THE SENATESELECT COMMITTEE SINCE INQUIRY CONCERNED DAVIS' KNOWLEDGE OFMARTIN LUTHER KING CASE. EPSTEIN STATED HE WISHED TO INTERVIEWDAVIS EITHER IN ATLANTA OR WASHINGTON, D. C.; HOWEVER, DAVISSAID THAT NO DEFINATE ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE DURING CONVERSATIONOTHER THAN HE WOULD CONTACT EPSTEIN AS TO APPROPRIATE DATE FORINTERVIEW IN ATLANTA.DAVIS WAS INFORMED HE COULD CONTACT THE OFFICE OF LEGALCOUNSEL COLLECT FOR ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER. DAVIS STATEDHE WOULD DO SO.ENDHOLD
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 82]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM: Legal CounselDATE: 5-30-75SUBJECT: SENSTUDY 75This memorandum reports the results of an executive meeting of the Executive Committee of the Ad Hoc Coordinating Group of Congressional Review for the Intelligence Community on 5-28-75. The meeting was chaired by William Colby, Director of Central Intelligence. Also present were: Philip Buchen, Counsel to the President, James Wilderotter, Associate Counsel to the President, Thomas K. Latimer, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, John M. Clarke, Associate Deputy to the DCI for the Intelligence Community, William O'Connor, Special Counsel for Intelligence Coordination, Department of Justice, Section Chief William O. Cregar, Inspector John B. Hotis, and senior officials of the State Department, National Security Agency, Office of Management and Budget, Defense Department, and the Treasury Department.The following matters of interest were discussed at the meeting:## House Select Committee on Intelligence ActivitiesMr. Colby said he met earlier this week with Chairman Nedzi of the House Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, John L. Boos, Chief Counsel, and A. Searle Field, Committee Staff Director. He said they seemed interested in the relationship which had developed between the Senate Committee and CIA and asked where he thought the Senate inquiry was going. They also discussed procedures regarding access to documents and witnesses and requested they be furnished some basic materials concerning the CIA's authority to conduct intelligence investigations. They also requested that the Committee be provided with all the materials requested by the Senate Select Committee. Colby pointed out that the House Resolution (H-Res. 138) which established the Select Committee prohibits the disclosure of information outside the Committee without Committee approval. There is some question, however, whether this Resolution can supersede Rule 11 of the Rules of the House of Representatives1 - Mr. Wannall1 - Mr. Mintz1 - W. O. Cregar1 - Mr. Daly1 - Mr. Hotis
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 83]
Legal Counsel to Adams MemorandumRe: SENSTUDY 75which provides that members of the House shall have access to allCommittee records. He said Congressman Robert N. Giaimo (D-Conn.)has indicated that he will not accept any limitations on access. Colbysaid he will appear in an open session before the Committee sometimein the next few weeks to discuss, in general terms, the agency's position oncollection of intelligence information.Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ActivitiesMr. Wilderotter said that F. A. O. Schwarz, Counsel tothe Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, has agreed to identifyin advance specific allegations of abuse that will be reviewed by theCommittee. Wilderotter said he will then appoint a task force or someother coordinating mechanism within the executive branch to examine eachof these areas in depth. The purpose will be to develop an executivedepartment brief on each subject which can be used to respond to Committeerequests. He felt that this might enable the Administration to gain theinitiative on these issues and perhaps limit the Committee's inquiries to theboundaries set forth in the Senate Resolution. He asked that the agenciesmake an effort to identify abuse subjects so that the White House can pulltogether all the information available on each topic. He said it is alreadyclear that the Committee will examine such subjects as assassinationsand the CIA's role in the internal affairs of Chile and the Dominican Republic.Mr. E. H. Knoche, Assistant to the Director, CentralIntelligence Agency, reported that Mr. Colby has made three appearancesbefore the Senate Select Committee and on each occasion discussedassassination matters. Mr. Colby will meet with the Committee three timesnext week, and it is expected that he will be asked about the Phoenix programand the covert activities of the CIA including political, counterintelligence,and clandestine intelligence collection. The Committee will trace the agency'soperations back to the 1947 directive in an effort to determine how theyrelate to policy objectives of the Government.Mr. William G. Hyland, Director of Intelligence and Research,Department of State, said the Committee has requested position paperson the Department's activities in Laos and Chile and to explain of the Depart-ment's approach to covert action and whether it was a supplement or instrumentof policy. Mr. Hyland raised the question of whether the agencies had anymoral obligation to advise former employees that documents were now beingCONTINUED - OVER- 2 -NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 84
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 84]
Legal Counsel to Adams MemorandumRe: SENSTUDY 75made available to Congress. He felt that they should be given an opportunity to review these files prior to interview in order to refresh their memories. Mr. Wilderotter agreed and said that each agency should adopt a similar policy.Mr. John M. Clarke, Associate Deputy to the DCI, asked whether anyone knew what John Elliff hoped to accomplish as Director of the Task Force on Domestic Intelligence. We pointed out that his earlier writings would indicate that he intends to draft an intelligence charter for the FBI, and perhaps the entire intelligence community. Elliff has made a comprehensive study over the past several years of the Bureau's internal security intelligence functions, including sources of the FBI's authority and the legal restrictions of its operations. This was the subject of a paper he submitted at the Princeton Conference in 1971, and he has since called for the establishment of legal standards for the Bureau's collection, retention, and dissemination of intelligence information.Mr. Buchen then requested that the FBI draft a proposed intelligence charter for the Bureau. He felt that it would be helpful for the Administration to have a proposal available which it might use to counter any recommendations made by the Committee. At the end of the meeting Mr. Wilderotter asked that a second paper be prepared reviewing all of Mr. Elliff's articles on the subject of domestic intelligence with the view toward identifying those issues which seem to be of major importance.With regard to Mr. Buchen's request, we feel that it would be inappropriate for the Bureau to draft an intelligence charter for the executive branch. It is the responsibility of the White House and other consumers of intelligence to define their needs and propose appropriate operating authority. We also question the utility of reviewing Professor Elliff's writings on the domestic intelligence functions. We feel a better course of action at this point is simply to ask Mr. Elliff to define the goals and objectives of his task force. He has always been very candid and forthright and we have no reason to think that he would be reluctant to discuss the matter with us. In addition, it is likely his views on the intelligence function differ from those expressed in his earlier articles, and it is best to get his current thinking on the problem. If this approach proves unsuccessful, we can then resort to a review of his written materials.RECOMMENDATIONSCONTINUED - OVER- 3 -NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 85
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 85]
Legal Counsel to Adams MemorandumRe: SENSTUDY 75RECOMMENDATIONS:(1) That Legal Counsel Division advise Mr. Wilderotterthat we feel it is inappropriate for the Bureau to draft an intelligencecharter of the FBI and recommend that the White House draft a statementof its intelligence needs.(2) That Legal Counsel Division contact Mr. Elliff andattempt to determine what his goals and objectives are as Director ofthe Task Force on Domestic Intelligence.![signature]![signature]![signature]![signature]![signature]![signature]![signature]- 4 -NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 86
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 86]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT## MemorandumTO: Mr. W. R. WannallFROM: W. McGregorSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 751 Mr. J. B. Adams1 Mr. J. A. Mintz(Mr. Hotis)DATE: 6/6/751 Mr. W. R. Wannall1 Mr. W. O. Cregar1 Mr. H. W. Dare1 Mr. L. F. SchwartzAssoc. Dir.Dep. AD Adm.Dep. AD Inv.Asst. Dir.:Admin.Comp. Syst.Ext. AffairsFiles & Com.Gen. Inv.Ident.InspectionIntell.LaboratoryLegal Coun.Plan. & Eval.Spec. Inv.TrainingTelephone Rm.Director Sec'yThis records the results of contact with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) concerning release to Senate Select Committee (SSC) of two documents pertaining to Appendix C, Paragraph 24 of the SSC request to the Department of 5/14/75, which requested "all memoranda and other materials reflecting conversations, contacts or 'communications between the FBI and the CIA on the subject of the establishment or creation of 'notional' Marxist-Leninist organizations withinthe United States."No information has been developed indicating this Bureau conferred with CIA regarding the establishment or creation of a Bureau-sponsored "notional" Marxist-Leninist organization. Although the FBI did, in fact, direct several such organizations, no information has been developed indicating the FBI consulted with CIA regarding their establishment or creation.In one instance, CIA advised in 2/70 it had established a notional organization with post office box addresses in Boston Massachusetts and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This notional organization, to be known as the Union for the Revolution, had the objective of developing penetrations and/or sources in revolutionary Arab groups in the Middle East. It was CIA'S intention to circulate propaganda from the post office boxes in anticipation of interesting Arab groups. Thereafter, it was CIA's plan to use its personnel under "suitable" cover to contact the Arab groups. (See memorandum dated 2/13/70, captioned "Union for the Revolution," 100-456409-2, copy attached.)By letterhead memorandum dated 3/23/70, the FBI indicated information had been received indicating the Union for the Revolution had been in contact with a domestic Marxist-Leninist organization requesting literature. This memorandum set forth an analysis of a "Statement of the Union for the Revolution" indicating the document lacked credibility as a revolutionary document. (LHM dated 3/23/70, captioned "Union for the Revolution," 100-456409-4, copy attached.)62-116395LFS:mjg/ENCLOSURE(8)5 JUN 11 1975CONTINUED - OVER84 JUN 1 1 1975NW, 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 87
[124-10271-10003_multirif.pdf — page 87]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRe: Senstudy 7562-116395On 6/6/75, Mr. Walter Elder, CIA, advised that CIAhad no objection to the LHM dated 3/23/70, being furnished tothe SSC. With regard to the memorandum from Mr. Papich toMr. Brennan dated 2/13/70, Mr. Elder requested that the nameof the CIA representative who furnished the information in thememorandum be deleted from line one of the memorandum prior toits being furnished to the SSC. Provided this is done, CIA hasno objection to this memorandum being furnished to the SSC.He suggested that when the name is deleted, it be replaced withthe phrase "A CIA officer."ACTION:To record CIA's clearance of the above-describeddocuments.