Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 230]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRE: SENSTUDY 7562-116395By memorandum dated 5/6/75, we advised the AG that the requested position paper of 7/31/72 is an internal deliberative document which we feel is inappropriate to furnish the Select Committee. This position is consistent with the position previously expressed by the AG. During the meeting with Elliff he was orally advised of the Bureau's position regarding making the 7/31/72 position paper available to the Select Committee.The Appendices which have not yet been made available to the Select Committee are being cleared with other agencies under the Third Agency rule requirement and will be made available to the Select Committee once all clearances have been obtained. Elliff was orally apprised of this.During the course of the meeting, Mr. Elliff stated that he felt the FBI's concerted investigative effort in the early 1960s against the Klan and later our investigative effort arising out of the ghetto riots were justified given the situation at that time. However, he felt the Committee would probably like to do an in-depth case study of both investigations. He asked if the FBI could provide the Committee with copies of all memoranda and documents reflecting the decision making process leading up to the initiation of the major investigative effort against the Klan as well as investigations during and following the ghetto riots. Elliff was advised that we certainly would consider responding following receiptoof a formal written request from Senator Church through the AG. Elliff advised he would prepare such a written request.The Intelligence Division has already instituted the necessary research in anticipation of this request and will submit recommendations following a completion of this research.In anticipation of Select Committee hearings which are expected to begin in about one month, Mr. Elliff and Gitenstein expect to start interviews of current Bureau employees in Bureau space during the week of 5/19/75. Mr. Gitenstein will concentrate on the work of the Internal Security Branch of the Intelligence Division and Mr. Elliff on the Counterintelligence Branch. We expect that Mr. Elliff will begin his interviews by meeting with Assistant Director Wannall, Inspector Leavitt and the Section Chiefs of the Counterintelligence Branch.
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 231]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRE: SENSTUDY 7562-116395It is noted that we previously furnished to the Select Committee with the AG's approval one copy each of Sections 87 and 122 of the Manual of Instructions. Section 87 is concerned with investigations of subversive organizations and individuals. Section 122 addresses extremist matters and civil unrest. In his discussion of these two Sections it was readily apparent Mr. Gitenstein had conducted a thorough review. In this regard, he noted a difference in the investigative procedure outlined in these two Sections of the Manual. Mr. Gitenstein was advised that the Intelligence Division had just completed a Manual revision combining these two Sections into one and had submitted it to the Director for his approval. Mr. Gitenstein commented this was an excellent idea to combine these two Sections into one and expressed the hope that the revised Section could be made available to the Committee for its review in anticipation of the forthcoming Committee hearings.At the conclusion of the meeting, Elliff asked whether the FBI would be willing to meet with the Staff to discuss such sensitive issues as surreptitious entry, the opening of mail, and incommunicado interviews. Elliff was advised that the Bureau was aware of certain allegations that have appeared in the press and felt that any interviews in sensitive areas should be restricted to the Senators on the Committee. Elliff interposed no objection to this suggestion.The thrust of the meeting gave Bureau officials present the impression that the task force was primarily concerned with identifying what areas of the Bureau's investigative responsibilities needed to be better defined through new legislation. In fact, Elliff solicited the observations of those present as to what the Bureau's needs were in the way of new legislation to permit the Bureau to carry out its internal security responsibilities effectively. He recognized certain limitations involving records of educational institutions, banking institutions, telephone companies and credit establishments currently restrict the Bureau and suggest that some legislation with Congressional oversight should be written to assist the FBI in carrying out its mission.
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 232]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRE: SENSTUDY 7562-116395ACTION:(1) We will proceed to meet with Mr. Elliff andMr. Gitenstein in accordance with their request. It is antici-pated that an Intelligence Division official will be present atall such interviews of current Bureau personnel.(2) That the reviewn of the combined Sections of87 and 122 by other Divisions of the Bureau be expedited inorder that we may be able to provide the Senate Select Committeewith this revision on an expedite basis.![signature]- 4 -NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 233
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 233]
May 5, 1975MEMORANDUMFrom: John ElliffSubject: "Intelligence Division Position Paper on Jurisdiction"dated February 13, 19751. The following documents directly related to this Position Paper have not been supplied to the Select Committee:   (1) The previous Position Paper, dated July 31, 1972.   (2) Appendices I, J, K, M, and P.2. Parts I and II discuss the Presidential directives which may serve as the basis for FBI national security intelligence activities. Part IV lists statutes and Executive Orders affecting FBI jurisdiction. There is no mention in Parts I and II of the first Executive Order cited in Part IV. This is Executive Order #11605, dated July 2, 1971, amending Executive Orcer #10450, of April 27, 1953, relating to security requirements for Covernment employmcat.   These Executive Orders have been further amended by a more recent Executive Order of June 4, 1974. This latest order abolished the so-called "Attorney General's List" and revised the criteria for determining the suitability and loyalty of Government employees.   The following questions arise:   (1) In what way, if any, do the Executive Orders relating to employment security provide a legal basis for FBI intelligence activities?   (2) In what way, if any, did the Executive Order of June 4, 1974, affect the legal basis for FBI intelligence activities?3. The analysis in Parts I and II discusses the legal basis for FBI national security intelligence investigations. There is no specific discussion of other intelligence activities. These other activities are variously described in the attached documents and quoted memoranda. The terms used include "counterespionage" (Presidential Directive of June 26, 1939),![ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 1-26-01 BY signature]62-116395-158ENCLOSURENW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 234
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 234]
-2-"to neutralize Communist front and Communist-dominated organizations of the United States" (IIC and ICIS Report to NSC, March 5, 1954), "program designed to intensify any confusion and dissatisfaction among its / Communist Party's members" and "counterintelligence operations" (NSC Briefing, November 6, 1958), "action proposals to protect the internal security of the United States" (National Security Action Memorandum 161, June 9, 1962). The term "counterespionage" reappears in several other documents. These terms seem to refer to activities which have since been labeled COINTELPRO operations. In this regard, it should be noted that Attorney General Saxbe's report of November 18, 1974 on FBI COINTELPRO Activities stated, at p. 20:"(2) Espionage or Soviet-Satellite IntelligenceThis program, although officially designated a COINTELPRO program, emphasized intelligence gathering and counterintelligence efforts already being pursued in connection with the Bureau's ongoing foreign intelligence responsibilities. It did not curtail any activity or in any way change the scope of counterintelligence efforts already in effect and continuing today. It was primarily intended to inspire initiative and to encourage ingenuity in the Bureau's continuing counterintelligence efforts against hostile foreign intelligence services.""In the interest of the national security, no statistics or examples of the types of actions implemented under this program may appropriately be disclosed."This passage seems to say that the FBI continues to perform other activities going beyond investigation and directed at hostile foreign intelligence services.The following questions arise:(1) In what way, if any, do the Presidential directives discussed in Parts I and II provide a legal basis for FBI national security intelligence activities beyond investigations?(2) In what way, if any, do the Presidential directives discussed in Parts I and II provide a legal basis for the COINTELPRO activities which have been discontinued as a matter of policy since 1971?
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 235]
(3) In what way, if any, do the Presidential directives discussed in Parts I and II provide a legal basis for the FBI's continuing counterintelligence efforts against hostile foreign intelligence services?4. Appendix S includes excerpts from the appropriations testimony of former Director Hoover. The testimony in 1939 and 1941 makes reference to President Roosevelt's Proclamation of National Emergency, September 8, 1939. The following exchange took place at the hearing on February 19, 1941:Mr. Ludlow. At the close of the present emergency, when peace comes, it would mean that much of this emergency work necessarily will be discontinued.Mr. Hoover. That is correct.Mr. Taber. Is your set-up for the national-defense work separate from the other work?Mr. Hoover. It is.Mr. Taber. Is it operated as a separate division?Mr. Hoover. Yes. In the field our field officials are under instructions to utilize approximately 50 percent of the personnel on national defense work and the other 50 percent on the regular work.Mr. Taber. But if some rush comes up, you might have to vary that?Mr. Hoover. That is correct.Mr. Taber. According to the situation.Mr. Hoover. According to the emergency that might arise. If the national emergency should terminate, the structure dealing with national defense can immediately be discontinued or very materially curtailed according to the wishes of Congress.When President Roosevelt issued the Proclamation of National Emergency on September 8, 1939, he accompanied it with Executive Order No. 8247 directing the Attorney General to "increase the personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, in such number, not exceeding 150, as he shall find necessary for the proper performance of the additional duties imposed upon the Department of Justice in connection with the national emergency." At a press conference the same day.
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 236]
-4-President Roosevelt specifically discussed this Executive Order and the nature of the "additional duties imposed upon the Department of Justice.""And the fourth Executive Order relates to what you might say is a combination of neutrality and national defense. It provides for an addition to the personnel of certain investigating agencies of the Government to protect this country against--I suppose the easiest way of putting it is--some of the episodes, some of the things that happened over here in 1914 and 1915 and 1916 and the beginning of 1917, before we got into the war. There was sabotage; there was a great deal of propaganda by both belligerents, and a good many definite plans laid in this country by foreign governments to try to sway American public opinion. We do not have to specify. The older men who are here can remember some of the episodes of that time. It is to guard against that, and against the spread by any foreign nation of propaganda in this country which would tend to be subversive--I believe that is the word--of our form of Government." (1939 Roosevelt Papers 485-486)The following questions arise:1.  To what extent, if any, were the Presidential directives of June 26, 1939 and September 6, 1939, based on the emergency powers of the President?2.  To what extent, if any, was the establishment of the FBI's Intelligence Division in September, 1939, based on the President's Proclamation of National Emergency and Executive Order No. 8247?3.  To what extent, if any, does Congress have the Constitutional authority to discontinue or curtail the FBI's national security intelligence activities based on the President's emergency powers or on other Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch?
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 237]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT## MemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM: Legal CounselDATE: 5/16/75SUBJECT: SENSTUDY 75At approximately 3:20 PM, former SA David E. Todd (EOD as SA 1/5/42; retirement 12/9/71) called long distance from San Francisco and spoke to Deputy Assistant Director Herington. He said that he had been contacted by Lester B. Seidel, Senate Select Committee, who said that he would be on the west coast in the near future and desired to interview Todd concerning FBI policies with regard to investigation of racial matters and our counterintelligence programs against the Black Panthers and other groups. Todd pointed out that he was a former supervisor of the San Francisco Office desk responsible for Black Panther cases. Todd asked what position he should take. He was advised that his decision as to whether or not to be interviewed was entirely his and that the Bureau could not make any suggestion in this regard. It was pointed out that if he decided to be interviewed, we had made arrangements with the Senate Select Committee which would permit a Bureau representative to be available for consultation with regard to matters that might seem sensitive, but that the Bureau representative would not be present during or participate in the actual interview. He was advised further that he had the same rights as any other citizen, namely, the right to personal counsel and any other rights guaranteed him under the Constitution. Pursuant to his request, he was also advised of the provisions of Attorney General Order 501-73 which appears in Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, beginning at Section 16.21, which would require appropriate Departmental approval prior to any current or former employee revealing, pursuant to a subpoena or other demand, any information acquired during the course of the employee's official duties. He was also reminded that all Bureau employees had signed a secrecy agreement.1 - Mr. Adams1 - Mr. Wannall1 - Mr. Mintz1 - Mr. Hotis1 - Mr. HeringtonJH:mtm
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 238]
Memo to Mr. J. B. AdamsRe: SENSTUDY 75Todd indicated that while he desired to respond as legally required to an official committee inquiry, he would advise Mr. Seidel that he considered himself bound by the Attorney General Order and did not feel that he could reveal official information without approval by the appropriate Department official. Todd was clearly advised that this decision had to be his own and that the FBI could not and would not make any recommendation to him as to the course of action he should take.RECOMMENDATION:For information.
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 239]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. ClevelandDATE: 5-8-75FROM: G. R. SteelSUBJECT: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ONINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ONINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (HSC)Reference is made to my letter dated 4-3-75 captioned as above (cc attached).This is to advise that as of 5-7-75 we have received and ordered to the field a total of 96 requests from the SSC for investigations of its staff members. An additional case was received on 5-8-75 which is being ordered to the field immediately. As a result of referenced memo, Inspector Bowers contacted the SSC which was in accord with a more realistic deadline on remaining investigations, except "a few" specials which world still be handled on an expedite basis, such as afforded Presidential appointments. Of all cases received to date only six have been designated as nonexpedite.It is noted recent articles in the media have contained criticism of Congressman Lucien Nedzi for delay in staffing the HSC and proceeding with its inquiry. On 3-3-75 Inspector Bowers discussed with the Congressman the mechanics for FBI investigations of the HSC staff. In the intervening period no cases were received except one recent case from the HSC which has been ordered to the field. This concerns Carl Hendrickson Simms, Security Director, HSC, and formerly connected with the House impeachment inquiry. Simms has been in contact with our Project Senstudy 75 group. It is not known when additional investigations will be received from the HSC.ACTION: For information.- ENCLOSURE Enc.ALL INFORMATION CONTAINEDHEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIEDDATE: 06-011 - Mr. Adams1 - Mr. Mintz - (Legal Analysis Office) 1 - Mr. Cleveland1 - Mr. Steel1 - Mr. AuerswaldGRS:dc54JUN4 1975
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 240]
Mr. Cleveland                                                              4-3-75G. R. SteelSENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ONINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ONINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (HSC)By agreement, the FBI is currently conducting full field investigations regarding SSC staff personnel. These have extremely short (2 week) deadlines which are identical to those afforded Presidential appointments and are, therefore, given preferential treatment in opening, assigning, and following field progress. The Special Inquiry Unit of the Employees Security and Special. Inquiry Section, which has about twice its normal case load, is handling these requests. Senator Church, Chairman, SSC, originally estimated that between 35 and 40 staff members would be submitted for investi- gation. As of today, 4-3-75, we have received requests for 65 such investigations from the SSC and the end does not appear to be in sight. They are received in bunches as many as 6 at a time, which is not the even flow expected and presents an additional burden.In addition it is expected that similar requests will be forthcoming in the near future from the HSC since we have a similar agreement with it. Congressman Nedzi, Chairman of the HSC, has estimated "probably no more than about 25 staff members will be hired." It remains to be seen if this estimate also falls short of actual receipts.Since there is no charge for these full field investigations they will have to be considered in the budget. It is noted the current charge for a full field investigation, where applicable, is $2023.ACTION: For information. Since it appears the nucleus of the Committee has been formed, it is suggested Senator Church be con- tacted and queried regarding a more realistic (30 day) deadline on the remaining investigations concerning future staff members and their replacements.1 - Mr. Adams                                                        1 - Mr. Mintz - (Legal Analysis Office)1 - Mr. Walsh                                                        1 - Mr. Cleveland95(1) - Mr. SteelGRS:dc
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 241]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. W. R. WannallFROM: Mr. H. E. HelgesonDATE: 5/2/75SUBJECT: SENSTUDY 75At about 1 p.m., 5/2/75, ASAC Herbert D. Clough,Newark Division, called to furnish the following information:The Newark Office had just been contacted by formerBureau Supervisor Dan Brennan, retired, who resides at Sea Girt,New Jersey. Brennan advised that he had been contacted earliertoday by Mike Epstein of the Senate Select Committee whodesired to talk to Brennan today and an appointment was set up.Epstein was to arrive at Newark around noon and then drive toSea Girt, about an hour's travel. Based on information furnishedat the recent conference in New York, Newark had dispatched anAgent to be present during this interview as requested by Dan BrennanAfter completing my conversation with Clough, I discussedthis matter with John Hotis, Office of Legal Counsel, and it wasconcluded the Agent from Newark who would be present duringthe interview should call Office of Legal Counsel, speak to Hotis,and obtain general guidelines for his participation in this interview.ASAC Clough was recontacted and so instructed. I alsoasked Clough to get in touch with me later in the day to let me knowwhat transpired.ACTION: For information.62-1163951- Mr. Adams1- Mr. Mintz1- Mr. Wannall1- Mr. CregarHEH:mah
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 242]
# UNITED STATES GERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsDATE: May 12, 1975FROM: Legal CounselSUBJECT: ISSUE PAPER ON INTELLIGENCE FILES AND PRIVACYThe Executive Committee of the Ad Hoc Co-ordinating Group on Congressional Review of the Intelligence Community identified ten issues likely to grow out of the Select Committee's deliberations. The Executive Committee asked the FBI to prepare a paper on one of these topics, Intelligence Files and Privacy. Specifically, the request was for a brief paper which raises the issues observed by the intelligence agencies when intelligence files and privacy are viewed together without, suggesting or recommending how the questions should be resolved.J. D. Milier drafted an outline which was discussed on April 16, 1975, with representatives of the CIA and Departments of Defense and Treasury. On April 21, this outline was presented by Mr. Hotis to the Executive Committee which received it without comment. Mr. Miller then prepared a rough draft which was discussed at a meeting on April 22, with the representatives of the CIA and Department of Treasury.Mr. Miller's final draft is attached. It discusses both intelligence files and the concept of privacy in general terms before focusing on the issues which present themselves when an effort is made to establish the proper relationship between the two.Enclosure1-Mr. Adams1-Mr. Wannall1-Mr. Mintz1-Mr. Cregar1-Mr. Cleveland1-Mr. Miller
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 243]
Memo from Legal Counsel to J. B. AdamsISSUE PAPER ON INTELLIGENCE FILES AND PRIVACYRECOMMENDATION:The issue paper entitled Intelligence Files and Privacy be submitted by Mr. Hotis to the Executive Committee of the Ad Hoc Coordinating Group on Congressional Review of the Intelligence Community.NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 244- 2 -
[124-10271-10299_multirif.pdf — page 244]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT## MemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM: Legal CounselSUBJECT: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEEON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESREQUEST OF 4-28-75REQUEST OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVILAND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, COMMITTEEON THE JUDICIARY, U. S. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES DATED 4-25-751 - Each Assistant Director-Encs.1 - Mr. Cregar-Encs.1 - Mr. Hotis-Enc.DATE: 5-2-751 - Mr. Mintz-Encs.1 - Mr. Daly-Encs.On 5-2-75, Doug Marvin, Assistant to the Attorney General, furnished SA Paul V. Daly two requests from Congressional Committees pertaining to an allegation that documents were removed from former Director J. Edgar Hoover's residence in Washington, D. C., following the death of Mr. Clyde Tolson. Attached are copies of each of the captioned requests.Each Assistant Director is to canvass his Division and furnish on an expedite basis any information they may develop considering this allegation. Responses should be directed to the Legal Analysis Office, Legal Counsel Division, so that the response may be prepared for the appropriate Congressional Committees and forwarded through the Attorney General's office.Also attached for approval is an airtel to the Washington Field Office requesting that an appropriate inquiry be made among Field Office personnel so that these allegations may be responded to.RECOMMENDATIONS:MAY 20 1975(1) That Assistant Directors make appropriate inquiry of personnel concerning the allegations contained in the aforementioned letters and forward results of inquiry to the Legal Analysis Office, Legal Counsel Division, so that responses may be prepared to the Committees' request.4 ENCLOSUREEnclosuresPVD:dkg (19)MAY 27 1975RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED - OVER