Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 88]
SECRETAppendix C, III, 24Please provide: 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 within the 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.)As the Union for the Revolution was strictly a creation of CIA, it is recommended before any information be disseminated outside the FBI relating to this organization, clearance be obtained through CIA.SECRETClassified by 437Exempt from GDS, Category 2&3Date of Declassification IndefiniteENCLOSURE 62-116 395-816Prepared by SA David Ryan, IS-3, 5/28/75NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 89
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 89]
# MemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM: Legal CounselDATE: 6/4/75SUBJECT: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESAt 4:55 p.m. on June 4, 1975, Daniel M. Armstrong, III, telephonically advised me that he has not as yet been contacted by the Senate Select Committee staff for interview but it was his intention to call Mark Gitenstein to discuss further his interview by the Committee. Mr. Armstrong inquired as to whether the Bureau has any objections to his discussing the two subject areas previously described by Mr. Gitenstein. Those areas were Armstrong's knowledge of the Bureau's Intelligence Division activities as a result of his employment in the FBI, and his knowledge of the possibility of the Bureau getting an Executive Order establishing the FBI's authority in security matters.I advised Mr. Armstrong that to the extent that the interview would concern those two subjects, the Bureau would have no objection and he could consider his secrecy agreement waived, but only to that extent. Mr. Armstrong inquired as to whether there were any particular problems with information he furnished to me on May 28, 1975. I told him that the waiver of the agreement was conditioned on the one limitation that he would not furnish information that would identify informants, compromise current investigations, or on-going programs, or reveal other sensitive matters which should be reserved for the information of members of the Committee or the Chairman of the Committee.I told Mr. Armstrong that the Bureau would have available during his interview, though not present at the interview, a representative who would provide him with counsel as to any problems concerning subjects he may be reluctant to discuss with the Committee representative. I explained that the FBI representative was not intended to inhibit any1 - Mr. Wannall1 - Mr. Cregar1 - Mr. Hotis1 - Mr. Daly1 - Mr. MintzCONTINUED - OVER
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 90]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select Committeeinterview he might have, but was there for the purpose of expediting the interview by resolving questions concerning information he was authorized to furnish.Mr. Armstrong said he fully understood and that he would advise me in the event an interview was scheduled.RECOMMENDATION:For information.- 2 -![signature]
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 91]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. CochranDATE: 5/19/75FROM: W. E. HarwardSUBJECT: SECURITY SURVEYS - SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES - HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES - CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENTRememos Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams dated 4/9/75 and 4/25/75 concerning above-captioned matter, copies attached.Liaison with Capitol Hill by the Office of Legal Counsel resulted in an arrangement whereby Laboratory representatives could meet with those members of the Capitol Police Force handling security surveys for the U. S. Congress. Laboratory personnel met with members of the Capitol Police Force on 5/6/75 and 5/8/75 at their headquarters, 331 First Street, NE, Washington, D. C. At the meeting on 5/6/75 an examination of their survey equipment revealed that it was adequate, however it did not meet the level of sophistication or quality available at the present state of the art. Further discussion revealed that the training received by members of the police force handling their responsibility was limited.On 5/8/75 Laboratory Supervisors Wilbur G. Stevens and Joseph B. Parsons met with Chief James M. Powell and some of his staff members which included Deputy Chief Garner, Captain Brannon, Head of the Investigative Unit, and Lieutenant Bell, Head of the Bomb Disposal Unit. The discussion at this meeting centered around steps which could be taken to update their present security survey equipment as well as additional measures which could be put into practice to enhance their technical expertise in this area. Laboratory personnel furnished them with the names of manufacturers of additional survey equipment as well as suggestions as to the establishment of an in-house training program.Enclosures (2)1 - Mr. Jenkins1 - Mr. Adams1 - Mr. Mintz (Attn: Mr. Bowers, Room 4509 JB)1 - Mr. Wannall (Attn: Mr. Cregar, Room 4123 JEH)1 - Mr. Cochran1 - Mr. Harward1 - Mr. Stevens
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 92]
Memorandum W. E. Harward to Mr. CochranRE: SECURITY SURVEYS - SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCEACTIVITIES - HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES -CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENTAt the conclusion of this conference, Chief Powell expressed his sincere appreciation to the Bureau for the excellent help and guidance extended to him and his staff in this matter of mutual interest, and expressed the hope that he could call on us again in the event he or his staff needed to tap our resevoir of knowledge. The Chief was assured that we would be available if needed in this capacity.It appears that the Capitol Police Force has been forced into the untenable position of handling this responsibility for the Congress, and as a result are attempting to establish some degree of self-reliance and outward credibility being completely inexperienced in this area of technical expertise. Because of this, it is felt that the Bureau should move cautiously in any continuing liaison with the Capitol Police concerning security survey matters.RECOMMENDATION:It is recommended that any continuing liaison with the Capitol Hill Police Force be handled by mature and experienced Special Agent Supervisors, who are completely familiar with security survey matters.
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 93]
L.E. J.B. AdamsLegal CounselSENATE SELECT COMMITTEEON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESHOUSE SELECT COMMITTEEON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESALL INFORMATION CONTAINEDHEREIN IS DECLASSIFIEDDATE 1-19-01 BY SDA/WMPDuring various contacts with William Miller, Staff Director of Senate Select Committee, and Congressman Lucien Nedzi (phonetic), Chairman of the House Select Committee, the question has come up regarding the need for a check of the private offices of individual committee Members to assure the absence of any electronic listening devices. The Committee personnel have been told that we consider this absolutely essential and they agreed.In exploring this matter, it was determined that the Capitol Police Department recently has established a special unit to handle all types of security problems within the Capitol Hill complex, including checks for electronic listening devices. Personnel of this unit have received extensive training, some from CIA. The operations of the unit are controlled through the sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate.This matter has been discussed with Robert Saugh, Deputy Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and with Kenneth Kurdian, Sergeant at Arms of the House. House advised that the special unit already has conducted complete security surveys of the new office space of the Senate Select Committee and certainly will perform any other checks of this type requested by the Committee or its individual Members. He said, in fact, that since they now have this capability they would oppose any outside agency coming on to the Hill to perform this function. House said he already has been in contact with Miller regarding the propriety security changes/alterations in will let go know when the offices of the main Select Committee have been checked. He said their rules require specific requests from the individual Members in writing.1 - Mr. Cromer1 - Mr. Harrington1 - Mr. Danzere62-116375 - 214CONTINUED - OVERSEE ADDENDUM PAGE TWO
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 94]
Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams HomeRE:* HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE  ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESThis matter was discussed with Congressman Nedzi on 4-9-75, and he stated he would promptly contact Mr. Harding to work out the necessary arrangements for security cases needed by his Committee and its Members. Mr. Harding has promised to let us know when the checks of the House Select Committee members have been completed.All contacts concerning this matter have been handled by Inspector Bowers who will continue to follow this situation with Senate Sergeant at Arms, William Worrell, or his deputy; House Sergeant at Arms Harding; Mr. Miller of the Senate Select Committee; and Congressman Nedzi.RECOMENDATION:For information.ADDENDUM: INTELLIGENCE DIVISION JDD:ekw 4/14/75On 4/11/75 the Executive Committee of the Ad Hoc Coordinating Group on Congressional Review for the Intelligence Community was apprised of the discussions with Mr. Robert Hough, the Deputy Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and with Mr. Kenneth Harding, Sergeant at Arms of the House, although the Executive Committee would have preferred the FBI to conduct audio sweeps, they interposed no objection to the sweeps being handled by the Capitol Police Department. Mr. Roderick Hills, Counsel to the President, requested, however, that both Mr. Hough and Mr. Harding be requested to periodically advice the FBI as to the sweeps of Committee space for electronic listening devices. Specifically, Mr. Hough and Mr. Harding should be asked to furnish the FBI the following: How frequently they will conduct a counteraudio sweep, what offices will be swept, will the results of such sweeps be furnished the FBI, and will the FBI be immediately notified should the Capitol Police locate an electronic listening device?NW 88296 DocId:32989588 Page 95- 2 -
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 95]
Mr. J. B. AdamsLegal Counsel 4-25-75SENATE SELECT COMMITTEEON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESHOUSE SELECT COMMITTEEON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESReference Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams memorandum of 4-2-75 to which the Intelligence Division placed an addendum dated 4-14-75 showing that Roderick Hills, Counsel to the President, had requested that the Sergeants at Arms of the Senate and House of Representatives keep the Bureau advised regarding checks made for electronic listening devices in the offices of captioned Select Committees.This was discussed on 4-23-75 by Inspector Bowers with Senate Sergeant at Arms William Wannall and his Deputy, Robert Hough. They were amenable to notifying us concerning the checks they make of Serate Select Committee space and the offices of the Members of this Committee. Hough was designated by Wannall to handle this matter. Rough advised that the special Capitol Police unit had made a check of Room 5145 in the Capitol on that date (4-33-75) prior to a meeting of the Senate Select Committee in that room and found nothing. Hough stated they have received no requests whatever to make any checks of the offices of individual Committee Members. He said he had discussed this matter with William Miller, Staff Director of the Select Committee, and Miller indicated it would be taken up with the Committee but he has heard nothing further from him.On 4-24-75 Bove rs discussed this matter with Kenneth Harding, Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives. Harding stated he has had no requests for any checks of the Members offices or1 - Mr. Adams1 - Mr. Wannall1 - Mr. White1 - Mr. Mintz1 - Mr. Cregar1 - Mr. Farrington1 - Mr. BowersDWB:zjs (9)NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 9662-110395-214CONTINUED - OVER
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 96]
Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams MemoRE: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEEON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESHOUSE SELECT COMMITTESON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESspace of the House Select Committee since the Committee really has not begun to function as yet. He said he has discussed this matter with Committee Chairman Lacion Redzi, and he certainly will give us complete accounting of checks they make of this Committee's space and the space of the individual Members of the Committee.RECOMMENDATION:For information.
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 97]
62-116395-213## CHANGED TO62-116464-44-528JUN 12 19/5Hmk/czALL INFORMATION CONTAINEDHEREIN IS INCLASSIFIEDDATE 1-19-01 BY SR2ALM/RWNW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 98
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 98]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsDATE: 5/23/75FROM: Legal CounselSUBJECT: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES; INTERVIEWS OF FBI EMPLOYEES OR FORMER EMPLOYEESAt the Executives Conference on May 22, 1975, I presented for discussion the question of the procedures to be followed when former employees or current employees of the Bureau are contacted for interview by staff representatives of the Senate Select Committee, or are called for testimony pursuant to a subpoena issued by the Committee. I explained the background including the numerous attempts to arrive at a working arrangement with the Committee in terms of stated guidelines and that all such efforts in the past had proven unworkable.I pointed out that when presented with the proposal that an agency representative be present during interviews, the Committee met and voted unanimously to reject that proposal. The issue of whether the agency representative would be present during the interview therefore is a stumbling block to the development of a reasonable procedure to be followed by the Committee and by our present and former employees. I requested the authority of the Executives Conference and approval of the Director to waive the requirement that a Bureau representative be present during interviews and following a vote such approval was given.I then requested authority to undertake the development of a working understanding with the Committee in behalf of the Bureau by which we would be given notice of the identities of persons to be interviewed prior to interview or testimony, that we would be advised of the subject matter of the1 - Mr. Callahan1 - Mr. Adams1 - Mr. Jenkins1 - Each Assistant Director1 - Mr. Mintz 1 - Mr. HotisJAM:mfdCONTINUED - OVER
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 99]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select Committee, etc.interview or testimony, and afforded an opportunity to discuss with the witness those areas of the proposed interview or testimony which would require no special arrangements and those areas which would require the information possessed by the witness to be furnished to members of the Committee or to the Chairman exclusively.We also wanted an opportunity prior to interview to furnish the witnesses information concerning their Constitutional rights, their rights pursuant to the Committee's rules, and to advise them concerning the extent to which they were released from obligations of secrecy made to the FBI, and to the procedures necessary to obtain authority of the Department to respond to a subpoena.Following discussion and vote this matter also was approved.Pursuant to such authority, I met with K. William O'Connor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, from approximately 4:00 p.m. to 5:20 p. m. on May 22, 1975, accompanied by Inspector John B. Hotis. I explained to Mr. O'Connor that the Director was desirous of having the Committee under- stand that the FBI wanted to be cooperative to the extent that it was possible and consistent with the need to protect the identities of informants, sensitive sources of information and methods, on-going investigations and other current operations and personal privacy. Because of this view of the Director and the Bureau, we desired to make known to the Committee the fact that we would not insist on the presence of a Bureau representative during actual interviews or testimony of present or former employees, but we would want an under- standing with the Committee and the Committee staff that the Bureau would be given prior notice of the identities of proposed witnesses, the subject matter of the proposed interview or testimony, and an opportunity prior to interview or testimony for the Bureau to consult with the employee in order to release him from his obligations of secrecy to the extent possible for purposes of the interview or testimony.I restated our position that we were not endeavoring to deter testimony rather we were attempting to facilitate testimony under reasonable conditions and we felt that these matters should be discussed with the Committee. I told Mr. O'Connor that we were aware of the numerous discussions, proposals and conferences that have been held in an effort to establish specific formal guidelines with the Committee, but that all such efforts in behalf of the White House staff and the intelligence community at- 2 -CONTINUED - OVERNW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 100
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 100]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select Committee, etc.large have not been successful. I told him that therefore we felt it would be appropriate for the FBI to express our view to the Committee because interviews of FBI personnel and former employees have been conducted and are scheduled in the near future.Mr. O'Connor said that he understood the Director's view that he desired to cooperate with the Committee and he felt that such cooperation could be negotiated if we were to offer the Committee as trading material in COINTELPRO files. I told Mr. O'Connor that we were not going to negotiate an understanding concerning witness interview procedures on the basis of trading any of our files. He then suggested that we negotiate the May 14, 1975, letter which was addressed to the Attorney General by Senator Church and use that negotiation as a basis for trading with the Committee to develop workable guidelines. I again told Mr. O'Connor that I considered the question of procedural arrangements for witness interviews to be a very broad question and one that went far beyond the requests in the May 14, 1975, letter. I told him that I felt confident that the May 14, 1975, letter would be followed by perhaps an even longer letter with more requests and that such matters should be negotiated individually.Mr. O'Connor then said that it was his strong view that a letter should be addressed to the Committee complaining of the treatment of FBI witnesses, particularly regarding violations of the Committee's own rules in that it appeared that during recent interviews the Committee had not furnished witness a copy of the rules in sufficient time and the treatment by staff representatives (& the Committee staff) of witnesses had been improper.I told Mr. O'Connor that I thought that our efforts to develop a working relationship with the Committee could be seriously impaired at this time should a protest letter be sent to Senator Church because a formal communication of that nature would require some reaction on the part of the Committee and I could see no benefit to our present efforts to establish procedures by which we could reasonably cooperate with the Committee.Mr. O'Connor then suggested that a letter might be addressed to Senator Church which described our concern that in the absence of reasonable procedures witnesses' rights might be impaired and that for that- 3 -CONTINUED - OVERNW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 101
[124-10271-10011_multirif.pdf — page 101]
Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: Senate Select Committeereason and for the reason that the Director desired to be cooperative with the Committee, we would request a meeting with Senator Church and Senator Tower to arrive at an understanding as to procedures. I told Mr. O'Connor that I would consider such a letter and he would discuss the matter with the Deputy Attorney General and with James Wilderotter at the White House.saidAt approximately 9:05 a.m. on May 23, 1975, Mr. O'Connor called me and said that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Wilderotter and the Deputy Attorney General. He said that both had agreed that it was inopportune at this time to seek special guidelines for interviews of FBI personnel and former personnel with the Committee. He said that a meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 27, 1975, at noon in a final effort to resolve an understanding with Committee representatives. He said at the present time it is proposed that the meeting be attended by Wilderotter and Roderick Hills, representing the White House; Hoffman, representing the Defense Department; Warner, representing CIA; and O'Connor representing the Justice Department. Committee representatives would be Schwarz, Chief Counsel, and John Elliff. He said that at this time it was his thought that the Deputy Attorney General and I should not attend the meeting. He gave as his reasoning the thought that "should something go wrong" the Deputy Attorney General could disassociate himself from any agreement arrived at, and that I would similarly be in a position of saying that we have not been a party to the agreement.I reminded Mr. O'Connor that meetings have been held frequently in the past and that tentative understandings made at such meetings have dis- appeared shortly after the meeting was concluded. I told him that was significant to us because we now understand that two more former employees of the FBI have been contacted and may be interviewed in the near future. I told him that former SA Sam Papich and former Agent Nichols have been contacted. I told him that the extent to which we should release these two former employees from their obligation of secrecy could not be intelligently evaluated unless we knew the subject matter of the interviews and that we plan to contact the Committee to inquire as to the subject matter. I pointed out to him that such pending interviews make it imperative for the FBI to consider action in addition to meetings that may be planned to discuss guidelines.- 4 -  CONTINUED OVER  NW 88296 Docld:32989588 Page 102