## Page 1

AAAAA

1104-10062-10073

2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992

OLC 74-0179

4 February 1974

MEMOR FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities

Testimony of 4 February 1974

1. This, the first day of hearings involving Agency witnesses to

testify under oath in executive session with Vice Chairman Howard Baker

presiding, was held in S. 1418, Dirksen Office Building. Although scheduled

to commence at 0930 hours, Senator Baker did not show up to swear in the

witnesses until 1025 hours at which time he administered the oath to Mary

McGillen, Robert Ritchie, Martin Lukoskie, and Erich Isenstead and then

left.

2. Background:

a. As a result of previous sessions with Senator Baker

and his counsel the following Agency witnesses were scheduled:

Mary McGillen, Robert Ritchie, Martin Lukoskie, Erich

Isenstead, James Angleton, Richard A. Krueger, Steven

Greenwood, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, Thomas Karamessines,

Frank O'Malley, and Jacob Esterline.

b. Those witnesses who were able to assemble were met

as a group on Saturday, 2 February, with Mr. Lansdale, Office

of General Counsel, and myself meeting each one individually.

It was pointed out to all that:

(1) Their appearance before the Committee was

voluntary; the Agency was not directing them to appear,

but, of course, the Committee had the power of subpoena.

2

Signer

#4182

---

## Page 2

14-00000

(2) They had the right to a private counsel and

that Mr. Lansdale and I would sit in with them during

the session and that our principal role would be to

assure that the questioning did not get into sensitive

areas unrelated to "Watergate. "

c. Early in the hearing of 4 February 1974 it became

clear that the Committee could in no way handle the five

witnesses scheduled for the day, and that the Committee

counsels had not had sufficient time to absorb the voluminous

written material that we had provided them earlier in the

week. As a result, with the agreement of Committee

counsel we unplugged for now Messrs. Isenstead, Angleton,

and O'Malley. Also, following the day's testimony which ended

in the late afternoon, I stayed on into the evening to review

all of the material that we had provided to the counsels to

make sure that they would make better use of the time of all

involved.

3. Presession Agreements:

Prior to the hearings Thompson agreed:

a. To the security arrangements which I outlined

(see attachment).

b. To treat the testimony as exhibits under the

I February 1974 understanding reached with Senator

Baker.

c. That he thought it would be all right for us to have

a copy of the transcript, but he didn't want us to show it to

scheduled witnesses. (This is a fairly remote possibility

because of the delay in getting transcripts.)

4. Mary Louise McGillen:

(Saturday Miss McGillen had mentioned that she had had a

roommate who somehow knew Marchetti and that the former roommate

had told her the Committee might be interested in talking to her, feeling

that she had information relating to McCord's employment in the Agency.)

2

---

## Page 3

14-00000

STOVER

1XX7B

Miss McGillen testified from 1025 hours until 1040 hours and her testimony

was completely uneventful. She identified Mr. Hollis Whitaker. Also, her

uncertainty over whether McCord retired in 1970 or 1971 raised a possibility

that she had seen McCord in Agency Headquarters in 1971 after McCord had

retired, but eventually it was clarified that she had seen McCord before his

retirement and not after it.

5. Robert Ritchie:

Mr. Ritchie testified from 1040 hours until 1235 hours, with

Thompson questioning Ritchie for about 65 minutes.

Ritchie acquitted

himself extremely well and there were no surprises in his testimony.

a. Liebengood brought out the sudden TDY to Head-

quarters from Miami following the Watergate incident.

b. Some confusion arose because Ritchie was not sure

of the date he took over Martinez, he thought it might have

been some time in March 1972, when in fact it was late in

April.

c. It is obvious that the counsels have some conflicting

testimony concerning the discovery of Martinez' car in the

Miami airport following the arrests in June 1972.

6. Martin Lukoskie:

During Mr. Lukoskie's testimony, which commenced at 1300

hours, I moved to go off the record a number of times on the following

points:

a. Thompson wanted to know who we dealt with in

General Foods to lay on cover arrangements. I told him

we were getting into unchartered waters because I didn't

know where his questioning was going to end up. He said

his interest was to find out the names of the individuals

and companies with which CIA had a relationship in Mexico

over the last ten years. I requested that he rephrase his

3

---

## Page 4

14-00000

SU:

question so that we could respond only with respect to the

particular companies or individuals in which he was interested.

As a concession, he cut down the period from the last ten years

to "since 1971" and I said we would note his request.

b. Thompson asked about CIA relationships with the Mormon

church, the Summa Corporation, or the Hughes Tool Company.

(Thompson said he had specific information that we had something

with the Mormon church.) I suggested that if he is interested in

whether the Agency had any relationship with these three institutions

in connection with CIA's relationship with the Mullen Company; he

rephrase the question. Thompson refused to do this and I said we

would note his request.

c.

Thompson wanted a full explanation of the "WH flap. "

I told Thompson this involved a sensitive and active situation

which had been explained to Senator Baker and that Lukoskie

was not an Agency witness in this respect, but we would note

his interest and see what could be provided. (I believe Thompson

has already been fully exposed to the "WH flap" in an executive

hearing with Bennett during which Baker asked if Bennett knew

what the WH flap was all about. Baker later told me that Bennett

did know, and explained it to Baker. I assumed that Bennett may

have gotten this information from Jim Everett:) Thompson

observed the parallel which exists between the position of CIA

with respect to the "WH flap" and the White House with respect

to issues it did not wish to be explored by the Attorney General

in connection with the activities of the Plumbers (an observation

I have been expecting for some time, 'but this is the first time it

has been presented directly.)

Mr. Lukoskie's testimony was

excellent with no surprises and generally

paralleled that given to Senator Baker in the Senator's office on 1l December

1973:

a. Concerning any general logs that CCS maintains on

contacts with cover firms, Lukoskie explained that internal

procedures had changed some time in December 1972 on the

information to be maintained in the logs. To assure his

responsiveness to a specific question, I refreshed Lukoskie's.

4

---

## Page 5

14-00000

memory on an entry in a CCS log on a call in June 1972

between the Agency and the Mullen Company in which it was

not clear either who initiated the call or who was contacted

in the Mullen Company:

Follow up: Provide any extant memorandum reflecting

the change in information to be covered in the CCS log.

b. In response to counsel's questions, Lukoskie said he

had no knowledge of (1) a Greenspun memorandum, (2) a

Mr. Waite (sp?) of General Foods, and (3) Mr. Hemlick (sp?)

of ANA (Association of National Advertisers).

c. The counsels focused in on the meetings between

Mr. Hunt and Messrs. Cord Meyer and Tom Karamessines.

d. In characterizing Mr. Bennett as an individual in

whom he did not have a great deal of trust, as contrasted

with Mr. Mullen, Lukoskie mentioned Bennett's suggestion

that Lukoskie would be well taken care of if he could assist

in getting unfavorable information on Mr. Maheu.

7. Following the hearings, I stayed on with the counsel and we

reviewed late into the evening the voluminous material previously provided

by the Agency to assure that they could make more effective use of the time

of all involved and hopefully to get to the bottom of whatever is troubling

them.

During the session I made it clear that I was puzzled by their ques-

tioning during the day since it was apparent that they had not yet absorbed i

the information we had already provided and which we think satisfactorily

answers the questions they had raised. Restating a point that I had made

previously, I said that while I did not personally believe so, their investi-

gation had the appearance of a fishing expedition and that if they continued

it would be unavoidable that we would have to disclose more and more

sensitive information which had no bearing on the case and which I assumed

5

BEC.

---

## Page 6

14-00000

they had no desire to obtain. I said that I felt that serious consideration

should be given to either advising Mr. Colby about the particulars, or if

that was not satisfactory, to at least advise our oversight Committee

chairmen and ask them to investigate whatever serious leads had been

developed in the secure environment structured for the oversight of

sensitive CIA matters. Mr. Thompson admitted this suggestion had some

merit.

S:0279

LYLE L. MILLER

Deputy Legislative Counsel

Att.

Distribution:

Original - Subject

1 - DCI

¿ - DDCI

1 - ER

. - OGC

-1G

1 - DDO

1 - OS

1 - Chrono

---