Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 62]
# J. Alleged Political Misuse of the FBIThe Committee is investigating allegations that the intelligence and investigative resources of the FBI have been misused by various Presidents, Attorneys General, Members of Congress, and FBI executives themselves. This subject may involve specific allegations of abuse and other controversial matters where there is reason to believe improprieties may have occurred.QuestionsThe Committee requests that the FBI and the Justice Department address the following specific questions:1. Have persons outside the FBI sought the FBI's assistance for partisan political purposes or personal advantage? Please identify each instance by the name of the person seeking to ..so use the FRT, the date, and the nature of the assistance sought.2. In each such case, what has been the response of the FBI?3. Have persons inside or outside the FBI sought to employ the resources of the FBI for purposes outside the FBI's authority? Please identify each instance by the name of the person seeking' to so use the FBI, the date, and the purpose for which the person sought to use the FBI.4. In each such case, what has been the response of the FDI?5. What measures has the FBI employed toa. Respond to critics.b. Affect the reputation or credibility of or otherwise discredit critics.6. What were the nature, purpose, duration, and results of Project INLET involving preparation of an intelligence letter for the President and other Executive officials?
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 63]
7. With respect to any so-called "secret files" maintained within the FBI, including the "official and confidential" and "personal and confidential files maintained by the executive assistant to the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on his behalf until the time of his death, the Committee seeks to establish the contents of such files, the circumstances surrounding the transfer of a portion of such files within the Bureau at the time of Director Hoover's death, the transfer of a portion of such files to Mr. Hoover's residence, the destruction of any such files, the transfer of any such files from Mr. Hoover's residence, the use of information within such files, and their relationship to the official investigative files of the FBI. The Committee desires all information bearing on these matters, including the results of any inquiries conducted within the FBI and the Department of Justice.8. What measures have been taken to ensure that the intelligence and investigative resources of the FBI are not misused for political purposes or personal advantage.9. What additional measures should be taken?Responsible Staff: Senior StaffTask Force LeaderMark Gitenstein
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 64]
# IV. Department of JusticeThe Committee is examining activities of divisions of the Justice Department other than the FBI which perform internal security and intelligence functions. The purpose of these inquiries is to determine whether these functions have been carried out in conformity with the rule of law.## A. The Attorney GeneralThe Committee is studying the functions of the Attorney General with respect to the supervision of and policy-making for internal security and intelligence activities. The Committee seeks to determine whether his duties are properly defined and his office properly organized to perform these functions effectively.### QuestionsThe Committee requests that the Justice Department address the following specific questions:1.  To what extent has the Attorney General been involved in the consideration or approval of the policies and activities of U. S. foreign and military intelligence agencies?2.  Has the Justice Department made any agreements with the CIA or any other U. S. intelligence agency with regard to the investigation or prosecution of agency personnel?3.  Under what circumstances and for what purposes has the Office of Legal Counsel provided legal advice to the Attorney General on matters pertaining to foreign and domestic intelligence activities?4.  To what extent has the Attorney General authorized cooperation, including the exchange of information and the conduct of joint operations, between the Drug Enforcement Administration or its predecessors and the CIA or other
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 65]
intelligence agencies with respect to narcotics intelligence?5. What standards and procedures has the Attorney General adopted for:a. The collection, analysis, use, and dis-semination of narcotics intelligence.b. The collection, analysis, use, and dis-semination of organized crime intelligence.c. The use of intelligence information by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.d. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grants for the support of state or local police intelligence activities and intelligence data systems.6. To what extent have communications between the White House and the FBI or other agencies under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General bypassed the Attorney General? To what extent should such communications be channeled through the Attorney General?7. What have been the policies and procedures of the Justice Department for evaluating the budget requests of the FBI for intelligence and counterintelligence activities?Responsible staff: Senior staffTask Force leaderMark GitensteinBarbara Banoff
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 66]
B. The Internal Security Section (formerly Division)The Committee is examining the activities of the Internal Security Section of the Justice Department and its predecessor, the Internal Security Division. These entities have supervised the Department's internal security law enforcement activities, coordinated certain interdepartmental internal security policies, and engaged in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence.QuestionsThe Committee requests that the Justice Department address the following specific questions:1.  Under what circumstances, if any, has the Justice Department seriously considered prosecutions under the Smith Act and laws pertaining to seditious conspiracy, rebellion, or insurrection, or "subversive activities", since January 1, 1960?2.  To what extent has FBI intelligence activity provided valuable evidence for use in the prosecution of specific federal crimes?3.  What have been the practices and procedures for coordination of policy through the Inter-departmental Committee on Internal Security?4.  What have been the practices and procedures for the interdepartmental and interagency evaluation of domestic intelligence and domestic collection of foreign intelligence through the Intelligence Evaluation Committee and its predecessors?5.  With respect to the Interdivisional Intelligence Unit and the Analysis and Evaluation Section of the Internal Security Division,a. What have been the practices and procedures of the Unit and Section for the gathering of intelligence?
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 67]
b. What type of information has been stored in readily retrievable form by the Unit and Section?c. To whom and for what reasons has intelligence information been disseminated by the Unit and Section?d. What were the reasons for the submission of IDIU computer printouts to the CIA, as reportedly occurred in 1969?e. To what extent did the Unit and Section make specific requests to other agencies within and outside the Justice Department for intelligence information?6. With respect to the use of grand juries by the Special Litigation Section of the Internal Security Division,a. Have any allegations of misuse of the grand jury process in cases handled by Special Litigation Section attorneys come to the attention of the Department? If so, briefly describe each such allegation and what, if any, action was taken by the Department in response to such allegation.b. To what extent, if any, did the use of grand juries in cases handled by the Special Litigation Section attorneys differ from the use of grand juries in cases handled by other sections of the Justice Department?c. To what extent, if any, was information obtained through the use of grand juries included in the intelligence files of the Interdivisional Intelligence Unit or the Analysis and Evaluation Section?
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 68]
7. What have been the practices and procedures of the Internal Security Division and the Departmental Security Office for advising the Attorney General and other executive agencies with regard to the Federal Employee Security Program?Responsible staff: Senior staffTask Force leaderBarbara Banoff
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 69]
# MemorandumTO: Mr. W. R. WannallFROM: W. O. CregarSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 751 - Mr. J. B. Adams1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall1 - Mr. W. O. CregarDATE: 6/26/751 - Mr. F. S. Putman1 - Mr. W. A. Branigan1 - Mr. L. F. SchwartzOn 6/26/75 James J. Angleton, former Chief, Counterintelligence Operations, Central Intelligence Agency, telephonically furnished the following information to SA L. F. Schwartz.Angleton recently testified under oath before three Senators and Staff Members of the Senate Select Committee (SSC). He appeared without counsel. During his testimony, Angleton was asked numerous questions concerning his knowledge of Israeli capabilities to conduct intelligence collection in the United States. Among the questions asked Angleton were questions bearing on Israeli efforts to gather nuclear information in the United States. Angleton indicated that the SSC apparently is aware of Angleton's past close relationship with the Israelis, and Angleton feels that the questions directed to him by the SSC may be related to information provided to the Committee by correspondent Tad Szulc who, according to Angleton, is writing an article concerning Angleton's relationship with the Israelis for Penthouse Magazine. Angleton understands that Szulc has either testified or has been interviewed by the SSC.Angleton stated that he avoided any direct answers on the above questions by stating that any knowledge he might have would be secondhand and fragmentary. He advised the SSC that such questions might more properly be directed to the FBI. When asked who in the Bureau might be knowledgeable in this.62-116395LFS:1hbhb3 JUL 10 1975CONTINUED - OVER
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 70]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRe: Senstudy 7562-116395CONFIDENTIAL SECRETarea, Angleton replied that he did not know but that he believed the current senior Bureau official concerned with operational matters to be Deputy Associate Director James B. Adams.In addition, Angleton advised that certain questions he was asked dealt with alleged Soviet attempts to infiltrate the CIA and other agencies. Again, Angleton avoided a direct answer and indicated that the FBI would be the appropriate agency to direct such questions to. Finally, Angleton commented that in the event the Bureau thought it desirable he would be happy to personally brief the Director or other appropriate Bureau official concerning his testimony. He commented that he has not been asked to, nor has he offered to, brief William Colby, Director of Central Intelligence, concerning his testimony.RECOMMENDATIONS:1.  We are checking for any available information in files concerning Israeli intelligence collection capabilities in the United States. Results will be summarized in separate memorandum.2. It is not believed appropriate to request Angleton to brief the Director or other Bureau official concerning his testimony, particularly since Angleton has not seen fit to brief his former superiors at CIA. A request by the Bureau for a briefing by Angleton might be misconstrued if it were to come to the attention of Colby or other CIA officials.NW 88326 Docld:32989611 Page 71
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 71]
The Attorney GeneralDirector, FBI1 - Mr. J. B. Adams1 - Mr. J. A. Mintz1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall1 - Mr. R. L. Shackelford1 - Mr. W. O. Creamy July 3, 19751 - Mr. D. Ryan1 - Mr. P. W. CookU. S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE TOSTUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITHRESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESEnclosed is the original of a memorandum concerning a contact made by the Staff of captioned Committee with Mr. Harry Eugene Schafer and his spouse, Mrs. Jill D. Schafer. It is noted that the Schafers, until March, 1975, served as confidential informants of this Bureau. A copy of the memorandum is also enclosed for forwarding to Mr. James A. Wilderotter, Associate Counsel to the President.Enclosures - 262-1163951 - The Deputy Attorney GeneralAttention: K. William O'ConnorSpecial Counsel for Intelligence Coordination1 - 134-16380 (Harry Eugene Schafer)1 - 134-19699 (Jill D. Schafer)![photo of writing at the corner of the paper]ALL INFORMATION COMAHEREIN IS, UNCLADATE 10-13-5000 SPZAUNAMD-14PWC:dew(13)Assoc. Dir,Dep. AD Adm.Dep. AD Inv.Asst. Dir.:Admin.Comp. Syst.Ext. AffairsFiles & Com.Gen. Inv.Ident.InspectionIntell.LaboratoryPlan. & Eval.Spec. Inv.TrainingLegal CounTelephone Ri![photo of writing on a paper]62-116395-3273 JUL 9 1975![photo of writing on the paper]Director Spex-4. 6 1975 ROOMTELETYPE UNITNW-88326. Docid:32989611 Page 72GPO 954-546UNRECORDED COPY FILED IN134-16380-134-19699-
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 72]
1 - Mr. J. B. Adams1 - Mr. J. A. Mintz1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall1 - Mr. R. L. Shackelford1 - Mr. W. 0. CregarJuly 3, 19751 - Mr. D. Ryan1 - Mr. P. W. CookU. S. SENATE SELECT COMMITIKE TOSTUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITHRESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)## RE: CONTACT OF MR. HARRY EUGENE SCHAFERAND HIS SPOUSE, MRS. JILL D. SCHAFER,WITH STAFF MEMBERS OF THE SSCMr. Harry Eugene Schafer and his spouse, Mrs. Jill D. Schafer, served as confidential informants of the FBI until March, 1975. Immediately prior to that date they were identified as sources of the FBI by Joseph Alfred Burton, a former confidential informant of the FBI. Since his discontinuance as an FBI source in July, 1974, Burton has been publicly attacking the FBI for alleged improprieties and illegal activities. Burton's charges are distorted and in some instances false.On May 21, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Schafer made available to our New Orleans Office a copy of a letter addressed to then dated May 14, 1975, signed by Michael T. Epstein, Counsel, of the SSC. In this letter Mr. Epstein requested the Schafers telephone his collect to discuss some natters relating to the current SSC inquiry.Subsequently, Mr. and Mrs. Schafer voluntarily contacted the New Orleans Office of the FBI to advise that at the invitation of Mr. Epstein they had traveled to Washington, D. C., on June 7, 1975, to converse with representatives of the SSC. Mr. and Mrs. Schafer indicated Mr. Epstein had offered to reimburse them for the expenses of this travel. The Schafers advised that upon their arrival in Washington, D. C., at the appointed hour, they went to Mr. Epstein's office. Mr. Epstein introduced himself and two colleagues, a male named Marshal Elliott, described as a representative of Senator Schweiker, and Mary De Oreo, a female researcher.1 - 134-16380 (Harry Eugene Schafer)1 - 134-19699 (Jill D. Schafer)PWC:dew/rsm (12)ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY TO THEATTORNEY GENERALSEE NOTE PAGE THREE
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 73]
# SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)RE: CONTACT OF MR. AND MRS. SCHAFER WITH STAFF MEMBERS OF SSCAccording to the Schafers, Mr. Epstein began the interview with the Schafers by stating the purpose of the Senate Committee and why the Schafers were asked to Washington, D. C. Mr. Epstein stated that the Committee was trying to develop information on what the U. S. intelligence agencies have been doing, what changes in these agencies are needed and "where mistakes might have happened."The Schafors advised they requested Mr. Epstein to ask them specific questions. He asked them what was the entire period of time of the Schafers' relationship with the FBI and if they were still associated with the Dureau. Mr. Schafer told Mr. Epstein that he was not going to admit any association with the FBI at this point and the reply seemed to groatly upset Mir. Epstein. He asked the Schafers why they had come to Washington, D. C. The Schafers replied they wanted to establish some groundwork for any relationship with the Senate Committcc. Mr. Epstein attempted to have the Schafers relate their activitics in behalf of the FBI, Mr. Schafer advised they refused to comply due to Mr. Epstein's manner and presentation. The Schafers stated they received the definite impression that Mr. Epstein and his colleagues expected to hear an afternoon of interesting stories and anecdotes.Mrs. Schafer told Mr. Epstein that they had done nothing wrong, illegal, immoral or unethical in their "movement" activities and they were proud of thoir contributions to the nation's internal security. The Schafers related they enjoyed a happy relationship with the FBI and they knew of nothing questionable or unprofessional regarding the Bureau's handling of their information. The Schafors said they made it clear that they would be happy to tell the SSC these things; however, since they were not reassured by Mr. Epstein, and were in fact put off by his manner and his colleagues' brusque reactions, they would not furnish anything further to Mr. Epstein. The Schafers stated that short of appearing before the Senate Committee, they wanted to be left alone.
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 74]
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC)RE: CONTACT OF MR. AND MRS. SCHAFER WITH STAFF MEMBERS OF SECAccording to the Schafers, Mr. Epstein and hiscolleagues gave the clear impression that they were disappointedand annoyed with the Schafers' reluctance to tell them anything.Mr. Epstein asked if the Schafers wa wanted to talk to any ofthe Senators and the Schafers stated they would be willingto speak to Senator Goldwater; however, Mr. Epstein mado nospecific arrangements other than to check with Charlie Lombard,Goldwater's representative. Mr. Epstein did not say if theSchafers would be subpoenaed; nor were any fira arrangementsmade about reimbursing them for their expenses. According tothe Schafers, the meeting broke up rather abruptly andMr. Epstein's colleagues left without saying good-by.The Schafors stated they made an effort to befriendly, co cooperative and amenablo to Mr. Epotein and hiscolleagues, and they made a good faith gesture in appearingbefore Mr. Epstein in Washington, D. C.NOTE:The Schafers, as paid informants, furnishedinformation from October, 1969, until March, 1975, to theBureau. Information in this LHM was contained inNew Orleans teletype to the Director, dated June 11, 1975.Several personal statements made by the Schafers, such as"bearded hippy" in reference to one of Epstein's colleagues,were not included in the LHM as this type of informationis not fully germane and our reporting of it might beinferred as our being prejudicial.
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 75]
# Intelligence Community StaffATTN: Central IndexFROM: FBISUBJECT: Abstract of Information Provided to Select Committees1. HOW PROVIDED (check appropriate term. If a document was made available for review but not transmitted, so note.)DOCUMENT BRIEFING X INTERVIEW TESTIMONY OTHER2. DATE PROVIDED7/3/753. TO WHOM PROVIDED (check appropriate term; add specific names if appropriate)SSCHSCMemorandum furnished to the Attorney General with a copy for forwarding to the White House4. IDENTIFICATION (provide descriptive data for documents; give name or identification number of briefer, interviewee, testifier and subject)Memorandum reports results of interview by SSC Staff Members of Harry E. Schafer and his spouse, Jill D. Schafer, formerly confidential informants of the FBI.5. IN RESPONSE TO (list date and item number if in response to formal request, otherwise state verbal request of (name), initiative, subpoena, etc.)NA6. CLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION (enter U, C, S, TS or Codeword)U7. KEY WORDS (enter the appropriate key words from the list provided separately; if key words not listed are used underline for emphasis)See (8)8. SUMMARY (see reverse side before completing this item)Interview failed to provide SSC any significant information due to an unfriendly atmosphere created by the participants resulting in an early termination of the interview.62-116395SFP:1hb(4)ORIGINAL VIA LIAISON TO CENTRAL COMMUNITY INDEX IN CONNECTION WITH SENSTUDY 75.TREAT AS YELLOWNW 88326 DocId:32989611 Page 76![signature]![stamp]
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 76]
INSTRUCTIONS• Type or print clearly in ink.• Indicate classification of the abstract top and bottom.• Date the abstract and put on any internal control numbers required.• "FROM" entry should clearly identify the organization providing the information.• If additions (as when a copy of document sent to SSC is later sent to HSC) or changes to a previously submitted form are necessary, submit a copy of the original abstract, with the change indicated.SPECIFIC ITEM NO. 8. SUMMARY - enter brief narrative statement describing substance of information and showing relationship to Intelligence Community matters if appropriate. Any feedback or evidence of investigatory interests should be noted. Commitments made to supply additional information should be noted. Additionally, certain administrative information may be entered here, e.g., restrictions on review of a document, if document was paraphrased, whether interviewee is current or former employee, etc. If actual document or transcript is provided, that fact should be noted and no summary is required. Additional pages may be attached if necessary.
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 77]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT## MemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM: Legal CounselSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 75DATE: 7-21-75The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities requested a staff interview with former Special Agent David E. Todd about COINTELPRO and the investigation at San Francisco of the Black Panther Party.At the direction of Bureau teletype 6-9-75, San Francisco on 6-11-75, advised Todd of above and that he was released from the applicable employee secrecy agreement for the purpose of the Staff interview.By letter dated June 11, 1975, Mr. Todd said the interview "may involve information disseminated to other Government agencies under security classification and may touch on foreign policy as well."Mr. Todd asked:1. For written confirmation of the release given him orally as well as a release from the provisions of any applicable executive orders;2. If there is "any limitation on the scope of the material" he may release; and3. Whether he will be permitted to "refresh my recollection by reviewing official files prior to or during the interview."Enclosure1 - Mr. Adams - Enc.1 - Mr. Wannall - Enc.1 - Mr. Cregar - Enc.1 - Mr. Mintz - Enc.1 - Mr. Hotis - Enc.1 - Mr. Daly - Enc.1 - Personal File Special Agent David E. Todd - Enc.1 - Mr. Miller - Enc.JDM: PVD:eek(10)(CONTINUED - OVER)![man holding a rifle and wearing a hat]
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 78]
Legal Counsel to Adams, MemoRe: SENSTUDY 75We have prepared an airtel to San Francisco with an enclosed letter for Mr. Todd in response to his request. We are having the San Francisco Office hand deliver the letter so that any questions he may have can be answered.We have not regarded requests for interviews as "demands" within the meaning of 28 CFR 16.22; therefore, no release from the Department is necessary.Regarding his request for access to Bureau files, we have not had former employees make this request previously. Our position should be that they not have access but rather rely on their recollection. If they cannot answer a specific question, the Committee can be referred to the Bureau.RECOMMENDATION:Attached Airtel with enclosed letter to Mr. Todd be approved and sent.![signature]![signature]![signature]- 2 -NW 88326 Docld:32989611 Page 79
[124-10271-10033_multirif_redacted.pdf — page 79]
DAVID E TODD20 COZZOLINO DRMILLBRAE CA 94030![airmail text over an envelope]CA#15-6203ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED.HEREIN, IS UNCLASSIFIEDDATE 11/30/83 BY SP-2TAPIRBGMr. Clarence M. Kelley,DirectorFederal Bureau of InvestigationU. S. Department of JusticeWashington, D. C. 20535NW 88326 Docld:32989611 Page 80