<SANITIZED>

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 00660805
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: March 9, 2023
• Document Release Date: August 14, 2020
• Case Number: F-2016-01299
• Publication Date: July 24, 1972

Approved for Release: 2020/08/14 C00660805
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
QiiAt4)
.24 July 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT:
1.
officers
Robert R. Mullen and
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(W(1)
(b)(3)
Robert F. Bennett principal
of met with
of the Agency at residence at 1700 (W(1)
flours on Friday, 21 July 1972 so that we could discuss (b)(3)
the Agency objective of removing
from both MO)
followed the agreed upon scenario that the (b)(3)
Station and Agency Headquarters desire to be
removed at once from both because the
publicity given in connection with the "Watergate
Five" incident has made position untenable.
2. refreshed Mullen's memory concerning
the incident in 1966 when a letter from the CIA recruit-
ment office with an Agency return address was inadvertently
iven to the occupant of the room adjoining
when both were graduate students at the University (WO)
o Indiana. (b)(3)
then of being an Agency employee. On 12 February 1972,
hii1nped into each other on the street in
in a loud, loud voice said "you are am(1)
CIA agent." We decided to add a to date untrue but (b)(3)
entirely possible) additional encounter with
informed Mullen and Bennett that a was
received on Thursday, 20 July relating that had sought
out , and informed him that the publicity given (W(1)
in connection with E. Howard Hunt, publicly stated M(3)
to be a former CIA employee and employed b until
the"Watergate Five" incident, convinced
is involved with CIA and that employee (W(1)
(b)(3)
'IVARNG NOTICE
..;�,7.:..,�_;i�."i';CE SOURCES
� urn .
-i\IND 9 2-4` _731'2
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
CLASSIFIEDBY
EXEMP7 FROM CJI4RAI. DECLASSIFICATION
SCHEDULE OF_F: 0 IIC$52. FXEMPTION CATEGORY:
� SS( Jq.C.!?,/ ( 1$ or (4) i circle Uric or raore)
AUTOMAIR ALLY DECLASSIFIED (3)(1)
APDCI
�� � � � �
(".1.$4 t�iti, �. �
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2020/08/14 C00660805
Approved for Release: 2020/08/14 C00660805
(b)(1)
,S (b)(3)
rh
VrA
in is also actually CIA.
is aggravated because
when visited in June 197 in 2.n
of the History Department at the
connection with his d cto a thesis and who was then
unduly suspicious o is now
where he controls the Security Police. The
is
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
The risk
who was 1.iairman
not a friendly one and we
could be picked up at any time Mullen said
he had been briefed by the on 4 July 19721m1)
concerning the unfriendly when he �
saw and the COS in connection with the need to (b)(3)
beef up
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
fear
3. Mullen reported that as a result of his meeting (b)(1)
with (b)(3)
additional substance, he had yesterday, 20 July, met with
General George Olmstead, President of the International
Bank of Washington and persuaded General Olmstead that (b)(1)
there is real business potential for Olmstead's firm(s) (b)(3)
there. cannot simply close out its
office in face of this just generated optimism.
and Bennett suggested cabling to return to (b)(1)
Headquarters at once on the premise that his presence will(b)(3)
be necessary for up to a month in connection with business
matters discussed at their 4 July meetin . Mullen or
Bennett would go to instead of in a (b)(1)
month �or so to either close out the office or take it over(b)(3)
if the potential with General Olmstead so dictates.
Mullen's suggestion that the Agency could continue to use
the cover was vetoed by Bennett then(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
pointed out that the connection with �the Morrell Company (b)(1)
via either and/or Bennett was too direct to permit(b)(3)
our continued iffvolvement. We must disassociate from
mullen stated that the
telt that 1 could be covered by (b)(1)
as well as he could i3 (b)(3)
Mullen in
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2020/08/14 C00660805
Approved for Release: 2020/08/14 C00660805
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
b)(1)
b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
said that cannot remain with in
any location and must absolutely sever his
relationship. gave Mr. Mullen a suggested
letter to be written (copy attached).
Mullen was of the opinion that such an abrupt close out
would only confirm any suspicions concerning
and at the best would require a month or so to accom-
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
plish.
could leave
tinue �the
decision.
He thought wow!cl be arrested before he
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
also might wish �to con-
office itself and
wants time to make its
4.
superior
excused
himself to telephone his
returned to report Mr.
action until interested
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
and
Idecision to withhold
Agency components conferred
on Monday, 24 July 1972.
Mr. Mullen
then said that in view of the risk that
(b)(1)
might be arrested
at once to proceed
at any time he would cable
(b)(3)
immediately to for
discussions
relating to a
nyosnertive deal as set forth
in their
July meeting. had told Mullen that
the Agency
tentatively plans
to move
under a
yet to be determined
cover. Mullen ruled out
fnr tho qtrvm-anil 1^ation
as being too far away
(b)(1)
from
to handle office matters
(b)(3)
such
as signing checks, etc.
Mullen was critical of
the Agency's slowness in removing
and mentioned his knowledge of our Li
rocedu e ." He obviously is primarily concerned with
ersonal safety. Kindschi later informed
at while was telephoning Mr.
Mr. Mullen had asked him whether the Agency
was justified in its appraisal of the danger to
following the agreed upon scenario, reemphasized
the comments made by and the Agency's desire to
remove as soon as possible.
(W(1)
5. Both Mullen and Bennett mentioned their belief (b)(3)
that the gency should pick up costs of any trips ta en' '
by to close out the office. Bennett said
would also have additional tax liabilities because (W(1)
capitalization of the office could not be written off ODA
during the. same period when reimbursement is received,
and that expenses and reimbursements therefore would
not "wash."
3
SERE
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2020/08/14__C00660805
Approved for Release: 2020/08/14 C00660805
(W(1)
6. felt he could not object to Mr. Mullen's(b)(3)
sendi e ca le instructing to proceed to
Mullen could not Postpone Sending this cable
could check because Mullen' was going to
e tountry" and unavailable Until' Monday.
Attachment:
Copy of suggested
letter
Distribution:
Original - File #13265
1 - DC/CCS Chrono
NND 9
(b)(1)
(b) (3)
4
3 PIET
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2020/08/14 C00660805