Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10271-10304.pdf — page 1]
# SECRETMemorandum to Mr. D. J. Brennan, Jr.RE: UNION FOR REVOLUTIONACTION:The above information is being directed to theattention of the Internal Security Section and theNationalities Intelligence Section. Liaison will followin order to obtain samples of the propaganda referred toabove and will again reiterate that we be furnished copiesof communications transmitted to the mailing addresses.(S2 - SECRET
[124-10271-10304.pdf — page 2]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. D. J. Brennan, Jr DATE: February 13, 1970FROM: S. J. PapichSUBJECT: UNION FOR REVOLUTIONALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS URCLASSIFIED EXCEPT WHERE SHOWN OTHERWISE.Norman Garrett, CIA, furnished the following to the Liaison Agent on 2/10/70.CIA has established a U.S. based notional organization representing itself as being communist oriented and having the following mailing addresses: P.O. Box 444, Boston, Massachusetts, 02102 and P.O. Box 8272, General Post Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19101. The organization's activity in the U.S. will be restricted to production of propaganda in the form of pamphlets, etc., which material will be mailed to various Left Wing groups in foreign countries. The primary objective of this operation is to develop penetrations and/or sources in revolutionary Arab groups in the Middle East. The organization is completely notional in character in that there will be no offices in the U.S. (only p.o. boxes) and even the officials will bear fictitious names. CIA hopes that once the propaganda begins circulating, Arab groups will become interested and will endeavor to establish contact with "officials" of the organization If this develops, CIA will then proceed to use its own personnel under "suitable" cover to make the contact. From then on CIA will maneuver to penetrate the target group.In response to the Liaison Agent's request, CIA will furnish us samples of propaganda. The Agent also asked that we be given copies of communications sent to the mailing addresses by any organizations or individuals. We should have such data so that we can take the necessary investigative action in the event any persons or organizations in the U.S. take an interest in the captioned group. We, of course, will also be interested in international ramifications which could have a bearing on... the activities of Left Wing activity in this country, The Agent also asked for the names of the officials which will be related to the Union for RevolutionAt this stage there do not appear to be any conditions or developments which would have an adverse bearing on our operations or jurisdiction providing that CIA keeps us adequately informed. CIA asks that it be apprised of any information coming to our attention concerning the organization. CIA further requests that its interest not be revealed outside of the Bureau and that this information be handled on a need-to-know basis.SJP: wmk Classified byExempt from CDS, Category Date of Declassification IndefiniteCONTINUED - OVER
[124-10271-10304.pdf — page 3]
SECRET* Memorandum to Mr. D. J. Brennan, Jr.  RE: UNION FOR REVOLUTIONACTION:The above information is being directed to the attention of the Internal Security Section and the Nationalities Intelligence Section. Liaison will follow in order to obtain samples of the propaganda referred to above and will again reiterate that we be furnished copies of communications transmitted to the mailing addresses.[^1]SECRET- 2 -[^1]: (S)
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 0]
# File #:62-116395# Serial Scope:101 THRU 150.104 THRU 105Released under the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 USC 2107 Note).Case#:NW 88296 Date: 2025
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 1]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: MR. W. R. WANNALLFROM: MR. W. O. CREGARSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 751 - Mr. J. B. Adams1 - Mr. J. A. MintzDATE: April 24, 19751 - Mr. J. B. Hotis1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall1 - Mr. W. O. CregarThis memorandum reports the receipt of a legal memorandum prepared by Mr. Edmund Cohen, Office of the General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, entitled "Authority of Congress to Release Classified Data." Copies of this legal memorandum have been furnished to Mr. Anthonin Scalia, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. James A. Wilderotter, Associate Counsel to the President.Memorandum Cregar to W. R. Wannall dated 4/14/75 discussed an article contained in the 4/10/75 edition of "The Washington Post" wherein Senator Frank Church, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, stated he reserved the right to make public any documents the Committee received. This memorandum also noted that Mr. James Wilderotter, Associate Counsel to the President, advised that The White House was preparing a letter to Senator Church recognizing that Congress can, at its discretion, declassify material it receives, but strongly urging that such declassification action not be taken unilaterally by the Senate Select Committee without approval of the agency originating the information.As an aid to the preparation of such a letter, the Office of CIA's General Counsel has prepared a paper entitled "Authority of Congress to Release Classified Data." Copy attached. It was made available to all members of the Ad Hoc Coordinating Group for Congressional Review of the Intelligence Committee for information and any comments recipients desired to make.ACTION: For information.Enclosure62-116395WOC:ekwNW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 2
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 2]
DIRECTOR O ENTRAL INTELLIGENCE17 April 1975Ad Hoc Staff75-350MEMORANDUM FOR: Members of the USIBAd Hoc CoordinatingGroupThis is being furnished you atDr. Clarke's request.Harriett D. MowittExecutive SecretaryAttachment![#MOR16 ALL FEI INFORMATION CONTAINED 1-19-01 SP2 2018 SP2 ALM 1416]![Enclosure] 62-116390=150NW 88296 DocId:32989532 Page 3
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 3]
MEMORANDUM FOR: Antonin Slia, Esq.Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of Legal CounselAttached is a hurriedly done legal memorandum entitled "Authority of Congress to Release Classified Data." I would welcome your comments on this so that a finished document could be made available to the various agencies concerned.![signature]John S. WarnerGeneral CounselCentral Intelligence Agency12 April 1975(DATE)NO.G 54 101 REPLACES FORM 10-101WHICH MAY BE USEDMEMORANDUM FOR: James A, Wilderotter, Esq..Associate Counsel to thePresidentAttached is a hurriedly done legal memorandum entitled "Authority of Congress to Release Classified Data." I would welcome your comments on this so that a finished document could be made available to the various agencies concerned.![signature]John S. Warner..General CounselCentral Intelligence Agency12 April 1975(DATE)NO.34 101 REPLACES FORM 10-101WHICH MAY BE USED.NW 88296 Docļd: 32989532- Page 4.> [Figure] stamp containing "#MDR16 ALL FEI INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE11-19-01 BY SP-2 ALM/RTG"
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 4]
11 March 1975#MDR16ALL FBI INFORMATION CONTAINEDDATE 7-19-01 SP-2ALM/17TGMEMORANDUM FOR: General CounselSUBJECT : Authority of Congress to Release Classified Data1. I have found no express authority for Congress to publicly release information classified by the executive branch pursuant to an Executive order issued by the President. Moreover, on a number of occasions Congress has mandated that matters pertaining to national defense or foreign policy be kept secret.--Congress has made it a crime for one lawfully having possession, access or control of documents relating to national defense or information relating to the national defense which the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation to communicate, deliver, or transmit same to any person not entitled to receive it. 18 U.S.C.A. 793(d),--Congress has made it a crime to disclose to an unauthorized person or publish any classified information obtained by the processes of communications intelligence. 18 U.S.C.A. 798(a).--Congress has made it a crime to photograph or sketch vital military or naval installations or equipment requiring protection against general dissemination of information. 18 U.S.C.A. 795. It is also a crime to publish or disseminate photographs, maps, or drawings of such defense installations without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer or higher authority. 18 U.S.C.A. 797.--Congress, in order to prevent public disclosure of certain activities, has given various officials the power to keep confidential certain funds expended for national security or foreign relations purposes. Such authority is given, for example, to the President (22 U.S.C.A. 2364), to the Secretary of State (31 U.S.C.A. 107), and to the Director of Central Intelligence (50 U.S.C.A. 403j).NW.88296 DocId:32989532.Page.5.........
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 5]
--Congress has provided that meetings of the Senate Committee on the Budget may be closed to the public if it is determined by a record vote of a majority of the members that the matter to be discussed...will disclose matters necessary to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the confidential conduct of the foreign relations of the United States. 2 U.S.C.A.. 190a-3.--Congress, after requiring that the Secretary of State transmit forthwith to the Congress the text of any international agreement, other than a treaty, to which the United States is a party, goes on to provide that...any such agreement the immediate public disclosure of which would, in the opinion of the President, be prejudicial to the national security of the United States shall not be so transmitted to the Congress but shall be transmitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives under an appropriate injunction of secrecy to be removed only upon due notice from the President. 1 U.S.C.A, 112b.--Finally, Congress, in enacting the Freedom of Information Act, expressly exempted from disclosure matters which are...specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. 5 U.S.C.A. 552(b)(1).2. Despite this apparent lack of authority to release classified data and the existence of the above-mentioned statutes, Congress is constitutionally immunized, at least in part, against any consequences flowing from release and disclosure of classified information. Article I, § 6 of the Constitution states in respect to Senators and Representatives that:...for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 6]
3. A long line of Supreme Court cases, beginning with *Kilbourn v. Thompson*, 103 U.S. 168 (1990), has held that the privilege or immunity relating to speech or debate should be given a broad and liberal construction. In *Kilbourn* the court stated:It would be a narrow view of the Constitutional provision to limit it to words spoken in debate. The reason of the rule is as forcible in its application to written reports presented in that body by its committees, to resolutions offered, which, though in writing, must be reproduced in speech, and to the act of voting.... In short, to things generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it. (At p. 204.)4. The court, moreover, has resisted arguments that an unworthy purpose should destroy the privilege. In *Tenney v. Brandhove*, 341 U.S. 367 the court reaffirmed its earlier holding in *Fletcher v. Peck*, 6 Cranch 87 (1810), stating:...that it was not consonant with our scheme of government for a court to inquire into the motives of legislators, has remained unquestioned. (At p. 377.)The distance to which the court was willing to go to uphold this principle was seen in *United States v. Johnson*, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). In that case a former Congressman was convicted for conspiracy to defraud the U.S., in part on evidence that, in pursuance of a conspiracy designed to give assistance to certain savings and loan associations which had been indicted on mail fraud charges, he was paid to give a speech on the floor of the House. The Supreme Court granted a new trial holding that a prosecution which draws in question the legislative acts of the defendant member of Congress or his motives for performing them "necessarily contravenes the Speech or Debate Clause." (At p. 185.)5. The court addressed the issue of classified information in *Gravel v. United States*, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), a case which arose when Senator Gravel, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds of the Senate Public Works Committee, convened a night meeting of the Subcommittee and there read extensively from a copy of the Pentagon Papers which bore a Defense security classification of Top Secret Sensitive. He then placed the entire 47 volumes of the study in the public record. Senator Gravel claimed that Article I, section 6 protected him from criminal or civil liability and from
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 7]
questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the Subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. The court stated: ".../T/o us this claim is incontrovertible." (At p. 615.)6. The court further noted that:*   The Speech or Debate Clause was designated to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer--either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution--for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting. (At p. 616.)7. From the above, together with the positive phrasing of Article 1, § 6 of the Constitution, it would appear that any Member may make any statement he desires on the floor of the Congress or in one of its committees. Such statement shall be absolutely privileged, notwithstanding that it was based on information secured from classified Central Intelligence Agency material either furnished the Member in confidence or containing any restrictive notice as to use or dissemination. This privilege would operate if the Member were to read the information verbatim into the record on the floor or into the record of hearings before a congressional committee. It would still be privileged when it appeared, verbatim, in the Congressional Record or in the published hearings of a congressional committee. The only sanction, apart from the individual conscience and sense of responsibility of the Member, would have to come from Congress itself, which has the power to discipline any Representative or Senator who improperly disclosed classified information.8. One additional wrinkle might be noted. Although Congressmen would be immune from liability for introducing classified information into a committee report and immune from liability for ordering it printed and disseminated to the public at large, the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents may not be immune from suit for printing and disseminating such reports to the public. The court examined this question in *Doe v. McMillan*, 412 U.S. 306(1973), a case in which petitioners claimed that a report issued by the House Committee on the District of Columbia, containing
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 8]
documents relating to disciplinary problems of certain specifically named students, violated statutory, constitutional and common-law rights to pri- vacy. The Supreme Court refused to determine whether dissemination to the public would serve the important legislative function of informing the public concerning matters pending before Congress for the purpose of holding Members of Congress liable. However, it remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, in part to undertake just such a review in order to determine whether the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents., who were without blanket immunity, could be held liable..9. The discussion thus far has dealt only with congressional immunity for releasing classified information in Congress. No such immunity exists in the case of disclosures made by congressmen outside of Congress. Thus, in *Long v. Ansel*, 69 F.2d 386 (Ct. App., D.C. 1934), affd. 293 U.S. 76 (1934), and in *McGovern v. Martz*, 182 F. Supp. 343 (US Dist. Ct., D.C.. 1960) it was held that if a Senator or Representative is alleged to have com- mitted libel by republishing and disseminating remarks made in the Congress, such republication and dissemination is not within the Speech or Debate privilege even if such privilege would have been applicable to the original publication of the remarks. Again, in *Gravel v. United States*, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), and in *Doe v. McMillan*, 412 U.S. 306 (1973) the court noted that the Speech or Debate Clause does not protect "à private republication of documents introduced and made public at a committee hearing, although the hearing was unquestionably part of the legislative process."10. From the above it is apparent that a Member is not privileged to circulate CIA documents to his constituents, to the press, or by reading to a meeting or on radio or television. Such action could well make the member liable for prosecution under the espionage laws, but in any event would expose him to the same liability for these actions as any other citizen. As a practical matter, however, the prosecution of a Member for unauthorized disclosure of classified CIA material, or disciplinary action by Congress itself, is very unlikely.![signature]EDMUND COHENOffice of General CounselNW.88296 Docl8:32989532 Page 9
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 9]
OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10MAY 1962 EDITIONGSA GEN. REG. NO. 275010-106UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT# MemorandumTO : Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM : Legal CounselSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 75DATE: May 2, 1975#MOR 16ALL INFORMATION CONTAINEDHEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIEDDATE 1-19-01 BYSP2 ALMI JTGThe April 29, 1975, Congressional Record - Senate, pages S 7054 through and including S 7056, sets forth rules and procedures for the captioned Committee. The rules cover such topics as the convening of meetings, meeting procedures, news media coverage, investigations, subpoenas, procedures related to the taking of testimony, procedures for handling classified or sensitive material, preparation for committee meetings, staff, and reporting of measures or recommendations.The key sections of these rules are subpoenas, investigations, and procedures related to taking of testimony.Concerning the issue of subpoenas, subpoenas may be issued by the Chairman or any other member designated by him with the consultation of the Vice Chairman.Procedures relating to the taking of testimony provide that testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation. It also provides that a witness may be accompanied by counsel. Witnesses may also request that there be no news media coverage of their testimony. Witnesses will also be given the opportunity of furnishing a statement prior to, and/or at the conclusion of his or her testimony. With regard to inspection and correction of testimony, witnesses will be allowed a reasonable opportunity to inspect their testimony, and corrections are permissible, but must be made in writing within five days of the availability of the transcript containing their testimony. Names of witnesses cannot be made public prior to their testimony unless authorized by the Chairman.Contempt procedures as set forth, require that after notice to all members of the Committee, and the affected person has had the opportunity to state in writing or in person why heEnclosure1. Mr. Adams1. Mr. Wannall1. Mr. Mintz1. Mr. Hotis1. Mr. Daly1. Mr. CregarPVD:eek(8)(CONTINUED - OVER)![LEGAL COUNSEL]
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 10]
Legal Counsel to Mr. AdamsRe: SENSTUDY 75or she should not be held in contempt, a vote would be taken by the Committe with a majority being necessary for the referral of a contempt citation to the full Senate.The rules concerning sensitive material limit access to such material to employees on a need-to-know basis and to only those staff members with appropriate security clearances.Reporting procedures for the Committee provide that where the Committee is unable to reach a unanimous decision, separate views and reports may be printed by any member or members of the Committee.A complete Xerox copy of the rules as they appear in the Record is attached.RECOMMENDATION:Action. For Information.![signatures]- 2 -NW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 11
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 14]
8 May 1975MEMORANDUM FOR: Members of the USIB Ad Hoc Coordinating GroupSUBJECT : Security ClearancesThe following is a listing of 12 additional Senate Select Committee Staff members and official stenographers (*) who have received a security investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation within the past five years and are certified by Mr. William G. Miller, Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee, by letter dated May 6, 1975, as meeting the requirements of Executive Order 10450 for access to classified information up to and including Top Secret.Name Date & Place of Birth Soc. Sec. No.*C. Harold Brown 6/6/38 Ohio 278-34-3428*Wayne Birdsell 5/2/06 D.C. 578-03-1841Anne Karalekas 11/6/46 Mass: 023-36-4329*Mary Lynch 3/16/26 W. Va. 250-38-1344Robert Kelley 10/29/40 Ind. 559-54-1348Paul Wallach 5/24/47 N. Y. 149-36-2999Lester Seidel 7/17/44 D.C. 216-38-5204*Frank Shelburn 5/30/13 Va. 338-24-6934*Robert Thomas 12/16/25 Md. 219-14-5186Gregory Treverton 1/21/47 Colo. 524-62-2459William Truehart 12/18/18 Va. 225-20-6411*Fred Ward 11/20/40 D.C. 225-50-9983
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 15]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO : MR. W.UBRUWANNALLFROM : MR. W. CREGARSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 751 - Mr. J. B. Adams2 - Mr. J. A. Mintz(1-Mr.J.B.Hotis)DATE: May 14, 19751 - Mr. W. R. Wannall1 - Mr. W. O. Cregar1 - Mr. S. F. PhillipsMy memorandum to you 5/13/75 furnished highlights of information relating to an interview by a Senate Select Committee (SSC) Staff Member of retired SA Alan G. Sentinella, as obtained by Supervisor Seymor Fred Phillips of the Bureau's Senstudy 75 Special Project.At 11:20 a.m. 5/14/75 Sentinella telephonically contacted Phillips from Atlanta, Georgia, and advised that he had been telephonically contacted earlier on the morning of 5/14/75 by SSC Staff Member Lester B. Seidel who had interviewed him 5/12/75. Seidel told Sentinella that he is being subpoenaed to give sworn testimony before an Executive Session of the SSC 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, 5/21/75. The testimony is to be given in Room G-308, New Senate Office Building. In response to specific questions from Sentinella, Seidel advised Sentinella that he will be reimbursed expenses, that his presence will probably be needed for only one day, and that the purpose is to essentially go over the material covered when Seidel interviewed Sentinella 5/12/75. Seidel asked Sentinella who had taken over the case concerning Levison (Stanley David Levison, former consultant to Martin Luther King, Jr., who was under Bureau investigation because of his communist background) in Atlanta when Sentinella left. Sentinella furnished Seidel the name of SA Richard Hamilton.Sentinella asked Phillips for assistance of the nature he received when he was interviewed; that is, someone-from the Bureau to render guidance relative to any sensitive areas that might be touched upon. He furnished the following as his telephone numbers in Atlanta, all area code 404.Office: 658-2167658-2168658-2170658-2119Residence: 475-5327475-7816CONTINUED - OVER62-1163951 - 67-432832 (Personnel File Former SA Alan G. Sentinella)