EXECUTIVE SEESION BUSINESS MEETING
Originator: HSCA
Document date: 04/24/1978
Document type: PAPER-TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

JFK Assassination System

Identification Form

Agency Information

Date:

10/14/20

AGENCY :

RECORD NUMBER :

RECORD SERIES:

AGENCY FILE NUMBER :

HSCA

180-10116-10324

TRANSCRIPT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS

Document Information

ORIGINATOR:

FROM:

TO :

TITLE :

HSCA

EXECUTIVE SEESION BUSINESS MEETING

DATE: 04/24/1978

PAGES:

24

SUBJECTS :

CHURCH COMMITTEE

CIA, FILES

LAW ENFORCEMEMT

HSCA, METHODOLOGY

CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS

DOCUMENT TYPE: TRANSCRIPT

CLASSIFICATION : Unclassified

RESTRICTIONS: Open in Full

CURRENT STATUS : Redact

DATE OF LAST REVIEW: 08/17/1993

OPENING CRITERIA :

COMMENTS :

Box 1. Folder title: Executive Session Business meeting.

v9.1

DocId: 32266679

Page

1

---

## Page 2

Lafrance

Select

committee on

assassination

4/1

178

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

EXECUTIVE SESSION

BUSINESS MEETING

-

MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1978

-

House of Representatives,

Select Committee on Assassinations

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 4:30 p.m., in room 1301, Longworth

House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Stokes, Preyer, Dodd, Ford,

Fithian, Edgar, Devine and Sawyer.

Present Also: G. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel and

Director; L. Svenosen, E. Berning, C. Mathews, J. Wolf and

M. Wills.

Chairman Stokes. A quorum of the committee bing present,

the committee will come to order.

Mr. Blakey. Mr. Chairman, the issues before the

committee this afternoon will all be over facets of the

investigation. Consequently it would be appropriate at this

time if a motion were made to go into Executive Session.

Chairman Stokes. The Chair will entertain such a motion.

Mr. Fithian. I so move, MI. Chairman.

Chairman Stokes. It is properly moved that for reasons

DocId: 32266679 Page 2

---

## Page 3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

under the rules of the committee that the committee go into

Executive Session. The Clerk will call the role.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Stokes?

Chairman Stokes.

Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Devine?

Mr. Devine. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr.

Preyer?

Mr. Preyer. Aye.

Ms. Berning.

Mr. McKinney?

(No response)

Ms. Berning.

Mr. Fauntroy?

(No response)

Ms. Berning. Mr. Thone?

(No response)

Ms. Berning. Mrs. Burke?

(Aye by proxy)

Ms. Berning. Mr. Dodd?

Mr. Dodd. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Ford?

Mr. Ford. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Edgar?

Mr. Edgar. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Fithian?

Mr. Fithian. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Eight ayes, Mr. Chairman.

DocId: 32266679 Page 3

---

## Page 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

Chairman Stokes. Eight members of the committee having

voted in the affirmative, this meeting is now in Executive

Session and all members of the public are asked to remove

themselves from the room. Mr. Blakey.

Mr. Blakey! Mr. Chairman, the first matter on the agen-

da should be the immunities. I had not thought it would be

necessary to bring the immunity matter before the committee

in light of the fact that we had done so at our last Monday

meeting. As it turned out, two witnesses on the

Kennedy side whom we had scheduled for deposiitons and

thought were cooperative told the staff that they would

refuse to cooperate and would claim self-incrimination.

Consequently we had to face the possibility of subpoena-

ing them before the committee. That gave rise to the

need for immunities. As long as the full committee was

going to be asked to do it again, I ask that the entire

schedule of witnesses that we could reasonably foresee

through both May and June, on both sides, be prepared to be

immunized at this time.

It is a little in advance of when

we might absolutely need it in some cases, but it seemed to

me appropriate to get that all over with.

You have before you, therefore, a resolution that would

authorize the Committee Staff to go before the District

Court to get the order. Again I would point out for you

that this, of course, does not grant anyone immunity.

DocId: 32266679

Pager 4

---

## Page 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

The witness would still have to appear and claim his privilege

and the committee or subcommittee at that time sitting would

have to make a decision whether to communicate the order to

the individual.

I think most of these witnesses, some of them, I will

have to ask help for. Basically they are those people who

are involved in the investigation somewhere and who could

have, on any fair analysis of it, a possible claim of privi-

lege. They are either the organized crime-type connected

or people who from the nature of the kind of questioning

that we would ask them could legitimately claim the privi-

lege.

As in the past, this is contingency planning. We do

not necessarily know that all of these people will claim the

privilege.

Chairman Stokes. Are there any questions relative to

this immunitity order? If there are no questions, the Chair

will entertain a motion.

Mr. Preyer. I so move, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Stokes. It has been properly moved that the

resolution for immunity be adopted. The Clerk will call the

role.

Ms. Berning.

Mr .

Stokes?

Mr. Stokes. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Devine?

DocId: 32266679 Page 5

---

## Page 6

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Devine. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Preyer?

Mr. Preyer. Aye.

Ms. Berning.. Mr. McKinney?

(No Response.)

Ms. Berning. Mr. Fauntroy?

(No Response.)

Ms. Berning.

Mr. Thone?

(No Response.)

Ms. Berning.

Mrs. Burke?

(Aye by proxy.)

Ms. Berning. Mr.

Sawyer?

Mr. Sawyer. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Dodd?

Mr. Dodd. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Fithian?

Mr. Fithian. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mr. Edgar?

Mr. Edgar. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Mi. Ford?

Mr. Ford. Aye.

Ms. Berning. Nine ayes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Stokes.

Nine members of the committee having

voted in the affirmative, the resolution for immunity is

adopted.

DocId: 32266679 Page 6

---

## Page 7

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Blakey?

Mr. Blakey. Mr. Chairman, the next matter that I have

to bring to the attention of the committee is one which you,

of course, are familiar with and is somewhat of a housekeep=

ing nature. Nevertheless, I thought that it ought to be

brought to the attention of the full committee..

In May of 1977 the CIA contacted Congressman (blank)

and brought to his attention what was, in the agency's

terms, the moratorium document destruction. During the

course of the Church Committee investigation, the Church

Committee asked the agencies, the FBI and the CIA, to cease

destroying in a routine fashion any and all documents.

The CIA responded by refusing to destroy any further

documents, put a moratorium on their own document destroying

process.

The other investigation agencies agreed that they

would not destroy any documents even remotely relating to

the investigations pending before the Church Committee.

The Church Committee has since lifted that moratorium on

December 21, 1977.

The agency has contacted the committee and asked us

our opinion on the document destruction program. My recom-

mendation to the Chairman was that the committee respond by

keeping it in operation at least for the life of the committee,

which would be through December of 1978.

In that vein, the Chairman wrote Admiral Turner on

DocId: 32266679 Page 7

---

## Page 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

April 13 pointing out that the document destruction program,

if resumed at this time, could have the appearance of an

impropriety, although it is doubtful, in fact, that it would

be in fact an obstruction of the investigation.

The CIA responded by asking me to come over and meet

with them and I did one morning last week at about 7:30.

They really pointed out the scope of the impact that this

moratorium has had on them for this length of time. They

tell me that the documents are increasing at the rate of

approximately 100 boxes a day and this comes out to a cubic

foot a box, a hundred cubic feet a day; that if it were at

all possible, they would like to have some relief from this.

- They also pointed out that the normal process for docu-

ment destruction requires them to submit to the Archives

schedules for destruction after which, should they be approv-

ed by the Archivist, they should go the normal course.

The agency is currently not complying with the law in that

regard in order that they would be in a position of

not de-

stroying records during the course of our investigation.

I am bring this to your attention because it seems to

me that we have a decent case to make that some of the

material that they have ought to be destroyed at this time,

that it has no remote relationship to our investigation.

Nevertheless, there is always a possibility that you will

read on the front page of the washington Post something to

DocId: 32266679 Page 8

---

## Page 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

• 11

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

the effect that the committee agrees with the CIA to destroy

documents and there will be sometime later on the last page

of the washington Post that we have explained to them that

it is essentially trash that is being thrown away and not

documents going to the heart of the investigation.

I really have brought it to your attention to get the

advice of the committee on, I think, the political dimensions

of the decision to suggest to the agency that they begin the

routine document destruction. Obviously anything most re-

motely related to this investigation should be preserved to

December 31.

Chairman Stokes. Are there any comments? Mr. Fithian.

Mr. Fithian. What kind of documents are they accumulating

at one hundred cubic feet a day?

Mr. Blakey. Among other things, there would be receipts

for exchange of documents between various buildings, just

simply receipts that the couriers have to pick up and take.

They have not even destroyed those receipts.

Mr. Fithian. You are only talking about documents

pertaining to this investigation?

Mr. Blakey. No. All documents of the CIA are currently

not now being destroyed. No documents are being destroyed.

That is if a courier comes over here and delivers to us a

copy of the background investigation that they have looked

at we will give them a receipt and they will get a receipt

DocId: 32266679 Page 9

---

## Page 10

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

from us.

Those receipts go back to the agency. Those

receipts are not being destroyed. They have not been

destroying recipts now since the ban was originally placed

on them. This goes back to the middle of the Church Committee

investigation.

It is a little more complicated than receipts. For

example, they pointed out to me that they have a number of

files now dealing with Operation CHAOS. I am sure you will

all recall that the agency conducted investigations of

domestic dissidents during the war. It is not lawful for

them to retain those files. Private individuals have actually

written the CIA asking them that the file on them be destroyed

because the agency has no right to retain it.

Under the moratorium requesting the agency not to des-

troy any files during the course of this investigation the

CHAOS Investigation Files, which are nothing even remotely

related as far as I can see to our inquiry, are currently

being retained by the agency.

Mr. Fithian. What kind of instruction can we give them

to allow certain categories to be destroyed and yet not

open ourselves up to the fact that they may indeed destroy

something that we need?

Mr. Blakey. They have a schedule where they identify

each document or each class of documents. If the committee

authorizes me, I can review those schedules along with the

DocId: 32266679 Page 10

---

## Page 11

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17.

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

10

Archivist and where it is not even remotely related to us, for

example, in the CHAOS File, and they are otherwise authorized

by law to destroy it, I can

say that the committee has no

interest in this and this can be destroyed.

I think if we could give them relief enough to let

them destroy about a hundred boxes a day they could at

least tread water between now and December. I really want

you to recognize ---

Chairman Stokes. What happens if they accidentally

destroy something that we wanted?

Mr. Blakey. We have been had.

Chairman Stokes. There would be no way to explain that.

Mr. Blakey. No way we could explain it. If we want to

play hard ball and insist that they do it, not destroy any

further documents, what we will probably have to do is go

sit with the Archivist and get him to suspend the order to

destroy documents. They have a group now scheduled for de-

struction that are not being destroyed because of communica-

tions with this committee.

Chairman Stokes. It seems to me that if you are talking

about seven months you are not really being mean. We are

trying to protect the committee's integrity of process here.

It seems to me that is something we should not get into.

Speaking as an individual, personally I do not think we ought

to get into that problem that they have.

DocId: 32266679 Page 11

---

## Page 12

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Dodd?

Mr. Dodd. I think we could also probably save the CIA

from itself in this case.

They are the ones who would be

suffering the brunt of criticism, I think, if it became

public knowledge that they have requested permission to

destroy documentation during the proceedings in which we are

looking at the various documents, papers and so forth, be

they so insignificant as a routing slip.

Mr. Blakey. Let me say, and it ought to be put in the

record, we requested the DOD files on Oswald that were

maintained in, I think, San Antonio. When we went to ask

for them, as opposed to the national files, we were told

that these were the files that were destroyed routinely

by the agency after the Irvin Committee explained about too

many records being retained by DOD.

Those are the files that our witness, I guess on

Thursday, Jones, indicated were substantially different

from the picture painted to us of Oswald's performance.

There is no way that we can establish what those files

actually contained.

So, this committee has suffered from the loss of files

in DOD. It has suffered from the loss of files in Memphis

and it has suffered from the loss of files elsewhere.

Chairman Stokes.

The Church Committee protected them-

selves, did they not, by requesting a moratorium?

DocId: 32266679

Payt 12

---

## Page 13

12

1

2

3

Mr. Blakey. Yes, sir.

Chairman Stokes.

Is there any further comment? MI.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Edgar?

MI. Edgar. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the comments

that you make. I think that they can find a storage room

for seven months and pile up paper. Perhaps we can suggest

to them that they have some kind of

resource recovery pro

cess where they use the burning of the files for some

energy producing source at the end of it or recycle the

paper.

I would hope that we would be in agreement that they

ought to keep them for seven months, whether they have value

to us or not. I think the appearance of impropriety would

damage our investigation and also, perhaps, damage the CIA.

Mr. Blakey. I promised to bring it before the

committee. I think that I have done what I have promised

them to do. I have no hesitancy going back to them and

suggesting that you thought it best that they keep them.

Mr. Sawyer. It might also provide incentive to hold

down Federal paper work a little. If they cannot keep

treading water, let them drown in it for a while.

Chairman Stokes. That is a good point.

Mr. Edgar. I so move.

Chairman Stokes. I think, then, that the concensus

of the committee has been expressed, you have brought it to

DocId: 32266679 Page 13

---

## Page 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

our attention and the committee has taken no further action.

The next item.

MI. Blakey. In a somewhat lighter vein, I have some

good news for one of you and some bad news for all of you.

I should inform you today that you have all be viewed indi-

vidually and collectively by Edward Fields and J. B. Stoner.

I graciously accepted service of process for you, only

after carefully noting that everybodies' name appeared in

the suit except for Mr. Stokes.

Chairman Stokes. Judgment proof.

Mr. Blakey. Some of you have bad news and one

of you has good news.

Mr. Dodd. For years I have filled out applications

and resumes asking the question, "Have you ever been sued"

and I have always said no.

Mr. Blakey. Frankly, this is in a light vein because

both actions, one action by Mr. Stoner, one action by Mr.

Fields, ask for declaratory judgment in quashing subpoenas

executed on them and to which they fulfilled their obliga-

tions last week.

Even if we had to respond on the merits in these

instances a good argument could be made that everything is

noot now anyway. In fact, what we do need from you at this

time is permission to go into court in your behalf and move

to dismiss these actions under it.

DocId: 32266679

Page 14

---

## Page 15

RG:

233

ENTRY:

BOX:

TAB #:

COPIES/ PPS. /CLASS.

ACCESS RESTRICTED

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:

File Designation

Date

From

To

in 134-10

20-23

In the review of this file this item was removed because access to it is

restricted. Restrictions on records in the National Archives are stated

in general and specific record group restriction statements which are

available for examination. The item identified above has been

withdrawn

because it contains:

Security-Classified Information

Otherwise Restricted Information

HSCA

Authority

08/22/93

Date

Withdrawn by NSCA

John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-526)

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

NA FORM 14000 11.861

DocId: 32261

=

DRA

WA

Г.

UI1

---

## Page 16

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

seeming to gain much for the time we have put in.

You ought to be aware that the staff is following the

current policy of taking by deposition or by statement almost

all of the evidence that we can, that the only matters that

are being directly brought into these Executive Hearings

are those that are contntious, where the witness may be

potentially cited for contempt, maybe lying to the committee,

or maybe resisting any effort to talk with us unless a

subpoena is involved.

That means, necessarily, that you are carrying the brunt

of the least productive phases of what we are doing.

In fact, on a number of levels in both the Kennedy

and King Cases some progress is being made. I think it would

be appropriate if we could have a general briefing meeting

sometime in the not too distant future, probably late in

the afternoon, where we could sit down and

go over exactly where we are in all cases.

Just to give you a for instance, on the Kennedy side

we have been exploring the finances of the ruby family.

We found that Eva Grant, Jack's sister, had no sudden increase

of wealth in the period folling the assassination. Indeed,

she is on welfare now, or social security, in Los Angeles.

Her brother, Earl Ruby, apparently did have a sudden

increase in wealth in 1964. He has gone from a marginal

businessman into a substantial businessman growing out of at

DocId: 32266679 Page 16

---

## Page 17

ends

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

24

for whatever comment or statement he would like to make in

regard to the Memphis affair. I do not know whether we should

stay on the record or off the record. I would prefer talking

with members of the committee.

Mr. Blakey. I do not think it is necessary on the record.

I would see no reason to have the Court Reporter here for

the only remaining items since they are just general

discussion.

Chairman Stokes.

Can we by common consent or without

objection dispense with the

formal proceedings? The reporter

is excused.

(Whereupon at 5:30 p.m. the committee proceeded with

an informal session.)

16

=

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-

DocId: 32266679

Page 17

---